00-1346 MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/TPRB/131
3 April 2000
TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF SINGAPORE
TPRB'S EVALUATION
The Trade Policy Review Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concluded its third
review of Singapore's trade policies on 29 and 31 March 2000. The text of the Chairperson's
concluding remarks is attached as a summary of the salient points which emerged during thediscussion.
The review enables the TPRB to conduct a collective examination of the full range of trade
policies and practices of each WTO member countries at regular periodic intervals to monitor
significant trends and developments which may have an impact on the global trading system.
The review is based on two reports which are prepared respectively by the WTO Secretariat
and the government under review and which cover all aspects of the country's trade policies, including
its domestic laws and regulations, the institutional framework, bilateral, regional and other
preferential agreements, the wider economic needs and the external environment. A record of thediscussion and the Chairperson's summing-up together with these two reports will be published in due
course at the complete trade policy review of Singapore and will be available from the WTO
Secretariat, Centre William Rappard, 154 rue de Lausanne, 1211 Geneva 21.
Since December 1989, the following reports have been completed: Argentina (1992 and
1999), Australia (1989, 1994 and 1998), Austria (19 92), Bangladesh (1992), Benin (1997), Bolivia
(1993 and 1999), Botswana (1998), Brazil (1992 an d 1996), Burkina Faso (1998), Cameroon (1995),
Canada (1990, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998), Chile (1991  and 1997), Colombia (1990 and 1996), Costa
Rica (1995), Côte d’Ivoire (1995), Cyprus (1 997), the Czech Republic (1996), the Dominican
Republic (1996), Egypt (1992 and 1999), El Salvador (1996), the European Communities (1991,1993, 1995 and 1997), Fiji (1997), Finland (1992), Ghana (1992), Guinea (1999), Hong Kong (1990,
1994 and 1998), Hungary (1991 and 1998), Icelan d (1994 and 2000), India (1993 and 1998),
Indonesia (1991, 1994 and 1998), Israel (1994 a nd 1999), Jamaica (1998), Japan (1990, 1992, 1995
and 1998), Kenya (1993 and 2000), Korea, Rep. of (1992 and 1996), Lesotho (1998), Macau (1994),
Malaysia (1993 and 1997), Mali (1998), Mauritius (1995), Mexico (1993 and 1997), Morocco (1989
and 1996), New Zealand (1990 and 1996), Namibia (1998), Nicaragua (1999), Nigeria (1991 and
1998), Norway (1991 and 1996), Pakistan (1995), Pa pua New Guinea (1999), Paraguay (1997), Peru
(1994), the Philippines (1993 and 1999), Poland (1993), Romania (1992 and 1999), Senegal (1994),PRESS/TPRB/131
Page 2/3
MORESingapore (1992, 1996 and 2000), Slovak Republic ( 1995), the Solomon Islands (1998), South Africa
(1993 and 1998), Sri Lanka(1995), Swaziland (1998 ), Sweden (1990 and 1994), Switzerland (1991
and 1996), Tanzania (2000), Thailand (1991, 1995 and 1999), Togo (1999), Trinidad and Tobago
(1998), Tunisia (1994), Turkey (1994 and 1998), the United States (1989, 1992, 1994, 1996 and
1999), Uganda (1995), Uruguay ( 1992 and 1998), Venezuela (1996), Zambia (1996) and Zimbabwe
(1994).PRESS/TPRB/131
Page 4
MORETRADE POLICY REVIEW OF SINGAPORE
29 AND 31 MARCH 2000
CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON
The Trade Policy Review of Singapore, which generated enormous enthusiasm among the
Member countries, was most useful to all participants in a variety of ways.  To the Singapore
delegation, so ably led by Permanent Secretary Kh aw Boon Wan, it provided a helpful assessment of
how their trade and investment policies are perceived by us;  to all others it demonstrated how sound
macroeconomic fundamentals, wise socio economic management, continued liberalization and bold
regulatory reforms helped sustain growth for a couple of years after the last Review and thereafter
assisted recovery in the aftermath of the economic crisis that hit the Asian region in 1997.  The size ofSingapore has come up;  we all know that Singapor e in low tide is larger than at high tide but
Singapore has shown that small can be beautiful.
It was acknowledged by several that the example of Singapore merited emulation.  Many
others saw lessons to learn.  Particularly noted was Singapore's swift and flexible response to thecrisis, without taking protectionist measures, at the same time accelerating liberalization in key
services as financial and telecommunications, as also planning the same in the energy sector.  They
observed that Singapore was one of the most open economies in the world with zero tariffs for most
lines, a liberal foreign investment regime and on-going reform programmes in the services sector
which went beyond its GATS commitments.  Singapore's steadfast faith in the multilateral tradingsystem was appreciated, as was its prompt implem entation of WTO Agreements including those for
which it has a transition period.  Members also noted Singapore's active involvement in regional
arrangements under a policy of open regionalism.
Some concerns were expressed.  One was over an apparent decline, or threat thereof, in
Singapore's external competitiveness in certain activities.  Suggestions were made that efforts to
encourage innovation as well as further liberalization and deregulation should be continued.  Some
Members also queried why Singapore had left almost 30% of its tariff lines unbound, and asked why
it maintained a sizeable gap between bound and applied rates;  this tended to lend a degree of
unpredictability and uncertainty to its tariff regime.  Details were sought on bilateral trade agreementscurrently under negotiations with Japan, Mexico and New Zealand, and their status in terms of
notifications to the WTO.
Furthermore, Members asked for details in a number of more specific areas including:
• the relationship between Singapore's multilateral liberalization commitments and
regional and bilateral agreements;  in particular, the rationale of negotiating bilateral
preferential agreements given that Singapore was already a substantially open marketeconomy;
• the reason for imposing tariffs as well as excise duties on certain alcoholic products;
• the ban maintained on imports of cars of three years and older for environmental
reasons, given the already stringent environmental compliance standards imposed by
Singapore on all cars;
• the rationale for providing investment incentives;PRESS/TPRB/131
Page 5
END• harmonization of standards and details on new guidelines being developed on the
labelling of genetically modified organisms;
• the consistency of the Major Exporter's Scheme (MES) with the WTO Agreement on
TRIMs;
• enforcement of intellectual property rights, particularly at the retail level and the
success of self-policing of alleged infringements of intellectual property rights;
• the role of Government in the economy, in particular through the holding company
Temasek and the Government linked corporations;
• intentions to develop an economy wide competition policy;
• transparency in government procurement and the 2.5% preference granted for
ASEAN members;
• the possibility of increasing Singapore's services commitments under the GATS and
scheduling services not already included in Singapore's GATS schedule; and
• market access in some services, including professional services.
Members greatly appreciated the clarification and responses provided by the Singapore
delegation.
Singapore's impressive results, flowing from its prudent policies, are self evident.  Its stated
desire to be the hub of some identified economic activities, both regionally and globally, is being
supported by a variety of well-designed efforts.
Singapore's continued commitment to trade liberalization and the multilateral trading system
is to be applauded.  In conclusion I cannot help but observe that what another City State, Athens was
long ago to the Age of Pericles, Singapore has become, in contemporary times, to the Age of dot
Com.