WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG140/5 
30 April 2004 
 
 (04-1928) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAPAN AND SINGAPORE 
FOR A NEW-AGE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP 
 
Questions and Replies
 
   
 The following communication, dated 7 April 2004, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Singapore.   This document reproduces the questions addressed  to the Parties and the responses submitted. 
The questions and replies set out below are or ganized in accordance with document WT/REG140/3 
(Goods aspects) and WT/REG140/4 (Services aspects). 
 
_______________ 
 
GOODS ASPECT
 
 
 
II. TRADE PROVISIONS 
1. Import Restrictions 
 1.1 Duties And Charges 
 1. Japan’s schedule for eliminating tariffs on the products of Singapore is contained in 
Annex I of the agreement.  Of the 96 chapters in Japan’s tariff schedule: 
- 52 chapters are completely covered in the Annex, with the tariff on all products 
of Singapore having been eliminated as of November 30, 2002;  
- 4 chapters do not appear at all: Chapters 19 (preparations of cereals); 20 
(preparations of vegetables); 42 (articl es of leather); and 64 (footwear); and 
- 40 chapters appear in part, having specifi c carve-outs or omissions; most tariff 
lines that do appear had their tariffs elim inated for products from Singapore as 
of November 30, 2002, while a few tariff lines will have their tariffs phased out by 2010. 
Of the chapters that partly appear in Japan’s Annex, significant omissions include tariff lines 
for: fresh or frozen fish (Chapter 3); vegeta bles (Chapter 7); rice, wheat and barley (Chapter 
10); rice, wheat, corn or rye flour (Chapter 11); prepared fish (Chapter 16); sugars (Chapter 
17); chocolate (Chapter 18); and distilled spirits (Chapter 22).   Singapore’s schedule for eliminating tariffs on the products of Japan also is contained in 
Annex I. It calls on Singapore to eliminate tari ffs on all products of Japan as of November 30, 
2002. WT/REG140/5 
Page 2  
 
  Article 14, paragraph 2 states that at the re quest of either party, the parties will consult 
to consider scheduling the elimination of customs duties on goods that are not yet set out
 in the 
Schedules of Annex I.   
 
(a) What was Japan’s rationale for excluding so  many tariff lines in agriculture from this 
agreement at the time it entered into force? 
 The agricultural sector is covered by the JSEPA , and tariffs on approximately 98% of total 
trade between the parties are free. The JSEPA fu lfills the requirement of Article 24 of GATT.  
 
(b) Have any Japanese tariff lines subsequently been added to its Schedule in Annex I (i.e., 
any tariff lines that were not yet set out in the Annex at the time the agreement took 
effect)? If so, how many tariff lines were added, and why were they not included when 
the agreement took effect? 
 There is no tariff line subsequently added. 
 (c) Does Japan have any plans to identify additional tariff lines - particularly for 
agricultural products - for tariff eliminatio n under this agreement, and if so, when and 
for what products? 
 There are no such plans at the moment.  
 
(d) What proportion of Japan’s tariff lines are not yet included in the schedule? For the 
year 2003, approximately what proportion of  Japan’s total merchandise imports from 
Singapore was merchandise classified under tariff lines that were not included in Japan’s Schedule in Annex I? 
 For the year 2003, 24 % of Japan’s tariff lines, which account for approximately 7% of 
Japan’s total merchandise imports from Singapore,  are not yet included in the schedule.  
 
(e) Is there any requirement in the agreement th at tariff lines not currently included in 
Japan’s Annex eventually be included in the Annex? Does the agreement embrace the possibility that the parties could simply ag ree to never request consultations on the 
addition of further tariff lines, or to hold co nsultations to “consider” tariff elimination, 
but never really act? 
 In Article 8, we have established a Supe rvisory Committee to ensure the proper 
implementation of this Agreement,  to review the economic relations hip and partnership between the 
Parties, and to consider the necessity of amendi ng this Agreement for furthering its objectives. In 
Article 10, we have a general review of the operati on of this Agreement in 2007 and every five years 
there after. In addition, Article 14(2) of JSEPA  also provides for consultations to schedule the 
elimination of customs duties on goods that are not yet set out in the schedules of Annex 1. 
 
(f) Japan’s Annex phases out tariffs on certain pr oducts of polyethylene—which ranged 
from 2.8% to 3.9% when the agreement took effect—over eight periods, with final tariff 
elimination not taking place until January 1, 2010. Why is such a long phase-out period required for tariffs that are not very high? 
 We understand that your question is referring to the tariff elimination schedule of HS 
390110090 etc. Concerning this product, production facilities have rapidly been increased under the 
Singapore Government’s assistance to the petroche mical industry, and most of these products are  WT/REG140/5 
 Page 3 
 
 
 made for export. (The demand for this product is almost zero within Singapore, and so, the expansion 
of production facilities was undertaken specifically for Japan.)   Therefore, if the tariff on this product is rapidly lowered, the Japanese petrochemical industry will suffer severe damage, so the tariff eliminati on schedule by 2010 is determined in JSEPA.  
 
(g) Does Japan apply any tariff-rate quotas to pro ducts of Singapore during the transition 
period during which tariffs are being elimin ated? If so, will the TRQ in-quota volumes 
grow during the transition period? 
 Japan has no such tariff-rate quotas.  
 
2. Article 14, paragraph 4 states that each part y will eliminate other duties or charges of 
any kind imposed on or in connection with the importation of goods of the other party. 
(a) Which duties or charges has/will each party eliminate(d) with respect to imports from 
the other party for the purpose of complying with paragraph 4? What is the purpose of 
these duties or charges?   
Neither Party has such duties or charges.  
(b) Do the eliminated duties or charges generate public funding for any government-
provided, trade-related functions related to merchandise trade between the parties? 
Neither Party has such duty or charge el imination that generates public funding. 
(c) If so, once they are eliminated on merchandi se trade between the parties, will the party 
imposing the duty or charge continue to p erform those trade-related functions without 
raising the level of the duty or charge on merchandise trade with third countries? 
 Please see the answer to question 2(b). 
  1.2 Quantitative Restrictions 
 
3. Article 17:(a) - Neither country will institute or maintain WTO-inconsistent non-tariff 
barriers (NTBs) on imports from or exports to the other party. 
(a) Since both countries are WTO members, they should be refraining from such activity 
already; why is this item even here? 
As Japan and Singapore are WTO members, we do not have non-tariff measures, inconsistent 
with WTO. However, we have put this item here to re-affirm commitment that neither Party shall 
adopt nor maintain any non-tariff measures inconsistent with WTO. 
(b) Will either party continue to impose WTO- consistent  NTBs on imports from or exports 
to the other party? Will any such NTBs eventually be phased out with respect to trade between the parties? For what purpose does the party continue to impose these NTBs? 
 We will continue to impose WTO-consistent NTBs such as SPS or TBT measures; however 
the purpose is as prescribed in the WTO Agreements. WT/REG140/5 
Page 4  
 
 (c) Does/will a party maintaining any WTO-cons istent NTBs administer them differently 
with respect to trade with the other party a nd trade with third countries? If so, how are 
they administered differently and why? 
 No, we do not administer them differently. 
 4. Article 17:(b) - Each party will ensure the transparency of any NTBs and their 
compliance with the party’s WTO obligations with a view to minimizing possible distortion to 
trade as much as possible. 
(a) Will either party remove or diminish any NTB with respect to imports from or exports 
to the other party, but retain that NTB with  respect to imports from or exports to the 
US and other third countries? 
No, we do not discriminate against third parties 
(b) Would removing or diminishing any NTB with respect to the products of the other party 
undercut the NTB’s original purpose or function? 
We are not removing or diminishing any WTO-consistent NTB. 
(c) If not, can the NTB be diminished to any degree with respect to products from third 
countries in a way that does not undercut it? 
 See answers to Questions 4 (a) and (b). 
 
3. Rules of Origin 
5. Article 23 states that in cases where product origin is determined using the value-added 
method (and based on a percentage specified for that product in Annex IIA), the qualifying 
value content is 100% if the value of the material from the parties is at least 60% of the total value of materials and the last production or operation took place in one of the parties.  
Is the 60% threshold too high, encouraging unrealistically high levels of qualifying 
content and restricting market access for impo rted materials and components from third 
countries? 
 The 60% threshold has been agreed by the cont racting parties as a result of the negotiations. 
The threshold could be reviewed if the both parties so agree.  
5. Safeguards 
6. Article 18 relates to the imposition, during the transition period to bilateral duty-free 
trade, of safeguard actions by one party to the products of the other in the event of serious 
injury of a domestic industry of the first party.   
In what ways are this FTA’s threshold an d methods for determining injury the same, 
and in what ways are they different, from the threshold and methods used for safeguard actions 
under the WTO? Does each party hold the other party to a standard for determining injury 
that is no more favourable than that to which it holds WTO members? 
 The emergency measures in this FTA have sev eral points different from the threshold and 
methods used for safeguard actions under the WTO.  WT/REG140/5 
 Page 5 
 
 
  
1. These emergency measures are used only dur ing the transition period (of 10 years.) 
 2. In using this emergency measures each party may:  
(a) suspend the further reduction of any rate or customs duty on the good provided for in 
this Agreement; or 
(b) increase the rate of customs duty on good to a level not to exceed the lesser of: 
(i) the most-favoured-nation applied rate of customs duty in effect at the time 
when the measure set out in th is Agreement is taken; and 
(ii) the most-favoured-nation applied rate of customs duty in effect on the day 
immediately preceding the date of entr y into force of this Agreement. 
3. These emergency measures shall not be mainta ined exceeding one year with very exceptional 
circumstances maintained for up to total maximum period of three years. Also these measures shall 
not be applied again to the import of a particular originating good which h as been subjected to the 
measure during the transition period. 
  In terms of determining injury there is no favour able standard to the other party than to the 
other WTO members.  
7. Article 18, paragraph 3 relates to the notifi cation requirements of each party to the 
other with regard to one party’s imposition of a safeguard action on imports of products of the 
other party. 
 The imposition by one party of a safeguard action only against a product of another 
party would impact trade in subject mercha ndise between the imposing country and third 
countries. As such, do the parties also intend to also notify the WTO, or at least make essential 
information related to such no tifications publicly available? 
 
 Because the increase of the rate of customs duty on good to a level that does not exceed the 
lesser of the most-favoured-nation applied rate of  customs duty in effect, it does not have a bad 
impact on trade in subject merchandise between the imposing country and third countries. There is no 
notification to the WTO required in this Agre ement; however we will make essential information 
available to public.  
  
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
1. Exceptions And Reservations 
8. Article 19, paragraph 1 lists reasons ((a) through (j)) for which th e parties reserve the 
right to adopt or enforce measures that may inhibit trade. 
(a) Please list any trade-inhibiting policies currently in force that are justified under 
any of the reasons described in (a) throug h (j). What products are affected by 
these measures? 
 
 The language of these exceptions is the same as the Article XX of GATT 1994.Please find a 
reference of the Article XX of the GATT 1994.  WT/REG140/5 
Page 6  
 
  
(b) Is each such measure administered exactl y the same with respect to the products 
of third countries? If not, for which products does the administration of the 
measure differ with respect to non-parties, and how does it differ? What volume of trade is impacted? 
 The language of these exceptions to trade in  goods is the same as the Article XX of GATT 
1994.   
9. Article 19, paragraph 1, reason (i) states that under certain circumstances, parties may 
impose restrictions on exports of domestic mate rials necessary to ensure essential quantities of 
such materials to a domestic processing indus try during periods when the domestic price of 
such materials is held below the world price as part of a governmental stabilization plan. 
 (a) What exactly is meant by domestic materials? Do they include manufactured 
items that are components of other manufactured items? 
 
 Please find the reference of the Article XX of GATT 1994.  
 
 (b) What exactly is a government stabiliz ation plan? Are there criteria to help 
observers know whether such restrictions, if imposed in the future, are really 
part of a government stabilization plan or are imposed merely as protectionism?  
  Please find the reference of the Article XX of GATT 1994.  
 
3. Dispute Settlement Procedures 
10. Chapter 21 contains the agreement’s procedures for dispute avoidance and settlement, 
including the establishment of arbitral tribunals. 
(a) Chapter 21 does not specifically described what award may be granted by an 
arbitral tribunal to the prevailing party in a dispute. Could such an award include a binding order to a party to mo dify the substance or enforcement of a 
law, regulation or procedure affecting in ternational trade or investment between 
the parties? 
 An award made by an arbitral tribunal c onstituted under the Dispute Settlement chapter of 
JSEPA shall be complied with promptly. In the award,  the arbitral tribunal shall set out its findings of 
law and fact, together with the reasons and ma y include suggested implementation options. The 
Parties agree that the award of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding on the Parties.  
 
(b) If such an award would result in a bindi ng order to modify a law, regulation or 
procedure on intra-party trade or investment, would WTO parties be notified of 
the change and why it was necessary? 
 JSEPA does not derogate from the commitments which each Party had made under the WTO 
agreements.  As such, each Party is still required to comply with the transparency requirements 
imposed therein, such as those in Article X of the GATT and Article III of GATS.   
 
 In addition, under Article 2 of the JSEPA, the Parties are also required to promptly make 
public, or otherwise make publicly available its laws, regulations, administrative procedures and 
administrative rulings and judicial decisions of gene ral application as well as international agreements 
which pertain to or affect the operation of the JSEPA.   WT/REG140/5 
 Page 7 
 
 
 III. OTHER 
3. General 11. Article 36 requires each party to provide for prompt customs clearance of goods traded 
between the parties by, among other things, simplifying its customs procedures. 
(a) Will a party’s simplification of custom s procedures apply equally to trade with 
the other party and trade with non-parties? 
 Yes, it does.  
 
(b) If not, which customs procedures will be applied differently, and how and why 
will they be applied differently? 
 Please see the answers for question (a) above.  
  
SERVICES ASPECTS
 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT 
3. Scope 12. As with any positive list agreement, it is difficult to ascertain the actual level of 
liberalization without examining both the scope of  service sectors included as well as the nature 
of any reservations that apply to those sectors that are listed.  
Could the Parties facilitate this assessment by describing the principal improvements in 
market access and national treatment resulting from this agreement? For example, could the 
Parties provide a list of sectors included in this agreement that were not listed in their respective GATS schedules and indicate the extent to which these sectors are bound without reservations? 
Similarly, with respect to those sectors th at are listed in the GATS schedules of 
commitments, could the Parties describe area s where further liberalization was achieved 
through the elimination of limitations to  market access and national treatment? 
 As to the level of liberalization, commitmen ts made by Japan cover 134 services sub-sectors, 
while Singapore makes its commitments covering 139 sub-sectors. In comparison with all 155 sub-
sectors listed in “services sectoral classification list (MTN.GNS/W/120)”, the coverage of commitments by both countries fulfils the condition of “substantial sectoral coverage” in the meaning 
of GATS V: 1(a). 
  As to the areas where further liberalization was achieved, Singapore makes new commitments 
in 77 sub-sectors, while Japan makes new commitments  in 32 sub-sectors. If you need more detailed 
information, please refer to the Schedule of Specific Commitments of both countries.  
 
13. It appears as though services provided  through a commercial presence (i.e., an 
establishment) may be covered under both th e chapter on services and the chapter on 
investment.  It also looks like the services chapter uses a positive list, while the investment chapter uses a negative list.  Is this the case or have they used the annexes to clarify what's covered where?  WT/REG140/5 
Page 8  
 
   Yes. As services provided through a commercial presence are also an investment as defined in 
the chapter on investment, they will also be  covered under the chapter on investment.  
 
14. Please explain the relationship between the services and investment chapters as they 
pertain to services provided through an est ablishment or a commercial presence.   
 Already orally explained at the 35th session of the CRTA. Please refer to paragraph 20 of the 
minutes (WT/REG140/M/1)   
15. How might a service provided through an estab lishment be covered by the disciplines 
contained in each of these chapters? 
 Where relevant, the disciplines of both chapte rs will apply to a service provided through an 
establishment.   
16. Are there any differences in sectoral coverage between services provided through a 
commercial presence under the Services Chapter as compared with services provided through 
an establishment under the Investment Chapter? 
 The services sectors covered by the chapter on ser vices are listed in each Party’s schedule of 
specific commitments.  The sectors covered by th e chapter on investment are defined by the 
investment annex reservations.  These reservations spell out the sectors which are not subject to the investment disciplines.   
 Additionally, both parties would like to submit the chart of the Japan-Singapore MRA (see 
Annex).   
IV. OTHER 
1. Movement Of Natural Persons 
17. Article 93 states that each party may recognize  professional qualifications (e.g., 
education or experience, licenses or certifications ) of natural persons of the other party. Article 
93 appears to not require such recognition be mutu al, and to give broad latitude to each party 
to continue to not recognize professional qualifications. (Article 94 establishes a Joint Committee on Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications, which appears intended to 
identify ways to broaden such recognition.) 
(a) Why is there not a stronger provision to ensure that recognition of professional 
qualifications is truly mutual? 
 The provision takes into account the differences  in the requirements for certification and/or 
licensure of various professionals between Japan and Singapore. Article 93 does sufficiently provide 
for mutual recognition - Clause 3 requires each party to accord the other the opportunity to make the 
case for mutual recognition. As such, the recognitio n of professional qualifications between Japan and 
Singapore is committed at a level that is comfortable with both parties.   
(b) Which professional qualifications are recogn ized by each party or by one party? 
What industries are affected? 
 Both countries have already started discu ssion to explore possible areas for mutual 
recognition of professional qualifications in the Joint Committee established under the Article 93.  WT/REG140/5 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Within the JSEPA, both parties have committed to the entry and temporary stay of business persons 
who possess acceptable qualifications, and any other conditions as required by the host country which 
are not confined to specific industries. The speci fic commitments can be found in Annex VI of the 
JSEPA.  Trade and Investment Promotion/Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 
 
18. Article 126 states that the parties will coop erate in promoting trade and investment 
activities by private enterprises of each.   
What types of steps are envisioned to promote trade and investment? Could such 
promotion include preferential, government-assis ted financing of investment and trade, tax 
breaks or other assistance or benefits by a pa rty’s government at any level to investors of the 
other party, etc.? 
 Under the JSEPA, besides the liberalization of  trade in goods and services, there are many 
other areas of co-operation.  One of these is co- operation in trade and investment promotion. To 
implement this, IE Singapore and JETRO (Japan External Trade Organization) has signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), unde r the JSEPA, on 26 October 2001.  
  A Working Committee meeting between IE  Singapore, JETRO Singapore and SPRING 
Singapore was held on 30 Jan 2003 to discuss the events for implementation in 2003. A second Working Committee meeting was held during the second half of 2003. 
 
 The progress under the different areas of the MOU is as follows:    
(a) Joint organization of industry-specific missions and seminars. 
 
So far, IE has co-organized with JETR O: Two IT seminars in Tokyo and "Doing 
Business in Japan" Seminars during 2003. IE is also embarked on an Electronics and 
Precision Engineering (EPE) mission to five prefectures and cities in Japan (Kumamoto, Osaka, Gifu, Tokyo and Ka nagawa) in October and November 2003. 
 
(b) Joint organization of business study missions to third countries. 
 
IE proposed to JETRO that Japanese compan ies can participate in the IE missions 
which are open to participation by forei gn companies. JETRO is considering this 
proposal and it will be further discussed.  
 
(c) The sharing of online databases of Si ngapore and Japanese companies keen to 
establish business ties.  
The JETRO’s TTPP–IE Singapore Database se arch gate was completed on mid 2002, 
helping companies in Japan and Singapore to exchange information to facilitate 
business tie-ups.  In addition to the activities under the IE-J ETRO MOU, IE has also promoted JSEPA 
through organizing FTA Outreach Programs for the Electronics and Precision Engineering, Logistics, International Trading, Shipping and Lifestyle industries over 
the course of 2003.  
Existing schemes to attract foreign compan ies to Singapore are open to all foreign 
countries. Such promotion does not include preferential, government-assisted financing of investment and trade, tax breaks or other assistance or benefits by a party’s government at any level to investors of Japan.   WT/REG140/5 
Page 10  
 
 19. Similarly, Article 131 states that the parties will cooperate in facilitating investments of 
Japanese SMEs in Singapore (with a view to enhancing bilateral SME cooperation elsewhere in Southeast Asia) and of Singaporean SMEs in Japan.  
What types of steps are envisioned to fa cilitate investment by SMEs? Could such 
facilitation include preferential financing of investment, tax breaks or other assistance or 
benefits by any level of a party’s government to investors of the other party, etc.? 
 In supporting JSEPA, IE Singapore and JETRO ha ve also organized seminars and facilitated 
business-matching sessions for incoming Japanese enterpri ses from different prefectures and cities.  
IE Singapore has led trade missions to Japan with companies in various industries such as food, electronics and precision engineering. In addition,  we received incoming delegations from Japan, 
which comprised of companies in industries such  as IT, lifestyle and food. These business exchanges 
signal increased business interest in Japan among Singapore companies.   
  As part of the JSEPA agreement to help facilitate and increase trade relations between 
enterprises in Japan and Singapore, JETRO has set up its Business Support Centre (BSC) in 
Singapore. Through its Centre, JETRO has been successful in facilitating the entry of Japanese 
enterprises into Singapore.  Similarly, IE Singapor e has opened a Business Support Office in Tokyo in 
August last year to replicate the success of JETRO’s BSC in Singapore. Through our Business Support Office in Tokyo, IE Singapore hopes to f acilitate the successful entry of more Singapore 
companies into the Japanese market, thus bringing about a greater development and exchange of new 
knowledge, ideas and know-how betwee n the two countries. IE Singapore works in partnership with 
JETRO and its Invest- Japan Business Support Ce ntre (IBSC) to jointly attract more Singapore 
companies to set up operations in Japan.    Such facilitation does not include preferential, government-assisted financing of investment and trade, tax breaks or other assistance or benefits  by a party’s government at any level to investors 
of Japan.  
 
Investment 
20. Article 75, paragraph 2 states that although both parties are generally precluded under 
paragraph 1. from imposing specified performa nce requirements on investments by a person of 
the other party, neither party is precluded from conditioning the receipt or continued receipt of 
an “advantage,” in connection with such invest ments, on compliance with certain of those 
requirements. 
(a) What specifically is meant by an “advantage” in this paragraph? Give specific 
examples, particularly of any “advantages” that presently are in effect. What volume of investment is affected by these advantages? 
 
 The reference to an "advantage"  generally relates to the incentiv es or grants which the Parties 
offer to promote investment. In determining whet her to make an investment, there are other key 
factors for consideration by an investor su ch as a stable macroeconomic and pro-business 
environment. As such, it would not be meaningful for us to track the specific data as requested   
(b) May investment by third-country invest ors be subject to the same conditions for 
the receipt of advantages? Are the same advantages and terms available to third-country investors as are available to the other party? May advantages to 
third-country investors, if available, be subject to the same conditions as are advantages to investors of the other party?  
  WT/REG140/5 
 Page 11 
 
 
  The investment chapter of the JPEPA does not cr eate any rights or obligations to an investor 
of third-country.  
21. Article 76 allows for specific exceptions to the provision of national treatment for 
investment (Article 73) and the general prohibition on performance requirements for 
investment (Article 75). These exceptions are th ose specified by the parties in Annexes VA and 
VB or any amendment or modification thereto th at does not decrease the level of conformity of 
the exception with Articles 73 and 75. 
(a) Why do these exceptions exist? 
 There exist some restrictions to foreign investments in a limited number of sectors as listed in 
the Annex. Security exceptions and prudential measures for financial sector would be typical reasons 
among others for maintaining such exceptions.  
(b) What volume of investment in that party do these exceptions apply to? What 
types of investment and trade are directly affected by these exceptions (e.g., 
sourcing of components, production of domestic markets due to export 
requirements)? 
 Generally, Singapore's exceptions to its liberal  investment regime relate principally to 
restrictions on foreign ownership of real estate,  domestic news media and the regulation of the 
manufacture of arms and explosives and certain pro ducts such as cigars, cigarettes and matches. We 
do not track such data as the volume of investme nts in such areas is marg inal.  Japan maintains 
sectoral exceptions among others for agriculture, mining industry, water transport industry, 
telecommunication industry and financial services. Data concerning the volume of investments for 
these exceptions are not available.   
(c) Do these exceptions apply equally and id entically to investments by third-
country investors? If not, what is th e purpose for any differential treatment? 
 The exceptions under JSEPA are applied to  investment of investors of a Party 
 
22. Article 83 provides general exceptions to th e agreement’s provisions on investments, 
allowing each party to implement measures nece ssary to protect public morals or maintain 
public order, protect human, animal or plant life or health, etc. 
(a) Please list the measures that qualify as exceptions under Article 83.  
 Currently, we do not have specific measures in place. This provision is consistent with our 
commitments under Article XIV of WTO GATS. 
 
(b) For each measure specified under (a): 
(i) What volume of investment in the party implementing that measure is 
affected by the measure? 
  (ii) How and to what degree is in vestment by the other party impacted? 
(iii) How, if at all, does this measur e impact investment from third-country 
investors differently from how it impacts investment from the other party’s investors? 
 
See above.  WT/REG140/5 
Page 12  
 
 23. Japan’s investment annex indicates a nation al treatment reservation concerning prior 
notification for investment in telecommunicati ons, securities, and something called "omnibus 
industry."  Which sectors are included in "omnibus industry"? 
 “Omnibus industry” means passenger transport services by bus.  
 24. Are national treatment reservations corresponding  to this provision included in Japan’s 
Schedule of Specific Commitments under te lecommunications and financial services? 
 Reservations of investment chapter and Schedule of Specific Commitments for services 
chapter are independently maintained, in the sense that respective chapters constitute self-contained 
disciplines which regulate, on its merits, what matters and in which format should be reserved. On this 
account, there is no inconsistency in the overlapping  areas of both chapters. Besides, "securities" in 
the reservation of investment chapter means security services and does to relate to financial services.  
 
25. Singapore’s investment annex appears to li mit the scope of its commitments under the 
national treatment and performance requirements disciplines to a positive list, namely those 
sectors scheduled in accordance with the services ch apter.  Japan appears to take a reverse, or 
negative list, approach by specifically listing sect ors excluded from the scope of the investment 
disciplines (e.g., nuclear energy).  What is the reason for this different approach?  Do the Parties believe that these approaches have achieved a balanced result? 
 Each Party’s commitments constitute an accepta ble package which is a negotiated outcome at 
the time of the JSEPA negotiations.  
 
Monopolies and Exclusive Suppliers  
26. We note that Art. 65 pertaining to mono polies and exclusive suppliers is based upon 
GATS Art. VIII, but also includes an additional provision (Art. 65(3)) regarding the request of information pertaining to a suspected abuse by a monopoly supplier.  However, because Article 
65(3) does not contain a requirement that the ot her Party must actually furnish information 
upon request, what is the practical value of this provision? 
 While the paragraph does not impose a firm obligation on the other Party to furnish the 
information, it is nonetheless an important signal of both Parties’ commitment to the principles of transparency   WT/REG140/5 
 Page 13 
 
 
 ANNEX 
 
Government of JapanGovernment of Japan
DesignationDesignation
SupervisionSupervisionDesignationDesignation
SupervisionSupervision
Certification BodiesCertification Bodies
of Japanof Japan
Test ResultsTest Results
Testing LaboratoriesTesting Laboratories
of Japanof JapanTesting LaboratoriesTesting Laboratories
of Singaporeof SingaporeCertificatesCertificates
of Conformityof Conformity
Certification BodiesCertification Bodies
of Singaporeof SingaporeGovernment of Government of 
SingaporeSingapore
Test ResultsTest ResultsJapan Japan ––Singapore MRA on Telecommunications, Technical Singapore MRA on Telecommunications, Technical 
Equipments, Radio Equipmen ts, and Electrical Safety Equipments, Radio Equipmen ts, and Electrical Safety
 
 
__________