RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG161/M/1 
14 March 2005 
 
 (05-1074) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Thirty-Ninth Session  
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN  
THE UNITED STATES AND SINGAPORE, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
Note on the Meeting of 18 February 2005  
 
Chairman: Mr. R. Saborío (Costa Rica) 
  
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2496. 
2. Under Agenda Item C.VII of its Thirty-Nin th Session, the Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committee)  took up the examination of the goods and services 
aspects of the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Singapore.  The following topics 
were discussed: 
 A. General Remarks 
Goods aspects
: 
 B. Background Information on the Agreement 
 C. Trade Provisions 
 D. Other   Services aspects
: 
 E. Background Information on the Agreement 
 F. Provisions Affecting Trade in Services 
 
3. The Chairman  stated that the Committee would exam ine for the first time the goods and 
services aspects of the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Singapore.  The Agreement had been signed on 6 May 2003 and had ente red into force on 1 January 2004;  it had been 
notified to the WTO on 19 December 2003, as doc ument with double symbol WT/REG161/N/1 – 
S/C/N/263.  The text of the Agreement appeared in document WT/REG 161/1.  He pr oposed to organize 
the examination by first asking the Parties and ot her Members for general comments; and then the 
Committee would turn to the speci fics of the Agreement looking firs t at the goods aspects, followed 
by the services aspects, using the Standard Formats (WT/REG161/3) and (WT/REG161/4), respectively, to guide the debate.  Before giving the floor to the Parties for their general statements, he 
recalled that the terms of reference for the examin ation of the goods aspects had been adopted on 26 
January 2004 by the Council for Trade in Goods as contained in document WT/REG161/2.  
A. G
ENERAL REMARKS  
4. The representative of the United States , on behalf of the Parties, said that the United States-
Singapore FTA was conceived with the aim to:  enha nce the already excellent bilateral relationship 
between Singapore and the United States;  promote ec onomic growth for both Parties;  contribute to 
the wider liberalisation process in APEC; and co mplement the WTO's efforts to create a more WT/REG161/M/1 
Page 2  
 
 predictable, freer and open global trading environmen t.  The Agreement had been signed by President 
George W. Bush and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on May 6, 2003 and had entered into force on 
January 1, 2004.  The high standards of the Un ited States-Singapore FTA were  indicative of the two 
countries' commitment to economic liberalization and openness and built upon their commitments under the WTO.  The Agreement included coverage of  substantially all trade in industrial goods and 
agricultural products and substantially all trade in services.  The Parties considered the Agreement to 
be fully consistent with GATT Article XXIV:8(b)  and GATS Article V.  It incorporated TRIPS-
consistent standards for copyright protection and contained trade-related environmental and labour 
provisions.  Customs duties on all goods originating in  either Party would be eliminated.  Tariffs on 
more than 98 per cent of two-way trade between the Parties had been abolished on the Agreement's 
entry into force.   Remaining tariffs would be elim inated over four, eight or ten years.  Both Parties 
had also undertaken not to adopt or maintain any import and export prohibition or restriction except in 
accordance with their WTO rights and obligations.  On rules of origin, the test in the Agreement was a 
general test of substantial transformation.  The Agreement contained a series of provisions to help 
enterprises determine the origin of the goods th ey produced, including regional value content, 
accumulation and "de minimis" rules.  The Agreement also provided that limited yearly amounts of 
textiles and apparel containing non-U.S. or non-Singa pore yarns, fibers or fabrics might also qualify 
for duty-free treatment.   
5. Turning to the services component of the Agreem ent, the representative of the United States 
said that in accordance with GATS Article V:1, the United States-Singapor e FTA had substantial 
services sectoral coverage and provided for the absence or elimination of substantially all 
discrimination.  This was a "negative list" agreemen t, which meant that all sectors were liberalized 
unless a Party took a specific reservation known as a " non conforming measure" in the Agreement.   
The Agreement covered the four modes of services deliv ery established in Article I.2 of the GATS.   
The chapter on cross-border trade in services enco mpassed cross-border supply , consumption abroad 
and presence of natural persons (modes l, 2 and 4)  and the chapter on investment covered rights for 
investors in manufacturing and services, including commercial presence (mode 3).  The Agreement 
directly incorporated two key provisions of the GATS - requirements to accord "market access" 
(GATS Article XVI) and "national treatment" (GATS Article XVII) - and made them applicable to 
bilateral services trade.  Other provisions of the GATS, such as its telecommunications and financial 
services annexes and those related to domestic re gulations, monopolies and exclusive suppliers, and 
general exceptions, were included w ithin the Agreement to the extent  necessary to apply and interpret 
each Party's national treatment and market access commitments in the same manner as under GATS.  
The intellectual property rights provisions of the Agreement clarified and built on existing 
international standards, with an emphasis on new and emerging technologies.  Key provisions of the 
Agreement, such as those on preventing circumven tion of anti-piracy devices and establishing the 
scope of liability for copying works on the Internet , were modeled on U.S. statutes.  The Agreement 
included state-of-the-art protection for trademarks  and copyrights, as well as expanded protection for 
patents and undisclosed information.  Test data  submitted for marketing approval was protected 
against unfair commercial use, and there was lin kage between marketing approvals and patent 
protection, so that, for instance, marketing appr oval was not granted to a product that infringed a 
patent.  The Agreement also called for strong en forcement mechanisms.  The FTA recognized the 
concept of "digital products" and provided for br oad national treatment and MFN non-discriminatory 
treatment for products delivered online.  It in cluded ground-breaking rules prohibiting duties on and 
discrimination against digitally encoded products transmitted over the Internet, including computer 
programs, video, images, and sound recordings.  For software and other digital products that were -
physically traded, the Parties had agreed to appl y customs duties on the basis of the value of the 
carrier medium.  The Agreement also contained tr ade-related labour and en vironmental provisions.  
Singapore and the United States had affirmed the im portance of not waiving or derogating from their 
domestic labor and environmental la ws in order to encourage trade or investment.  The two countries 
had also committed not to fail to enforce effectiv ely their domestic labour and environmental laws.  
Both Parties recognized that cooperation enhanced opportunities for promoting the respect of labour  WT/REG161/M/1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 and environmental standards and w ould explore cooperative projects in these areas.  The Agreement's 
strong dispute settlement rules provided equivalent  remedies to enforce panel decisions under the 
Agreement, regardless of whether they addr essed the Agreement's commercial, labour or 
environmental provisions.  Enforcement through th e suspension of trade benefits provided under the 
Agreement was also available for all types of di sputes.  Both countries viewed the United States-
Singapore FTA as a dynamic, rather than a static , agreement.  Hence the Agreement provided for 
periodic review.  At the first annual review of th e Agreement, which took place recently, the Parties 
had discussed implementation of the Agreement a nd had agreed to work together on further 
liberalization between the Parties.  The Parties reiterated their strong supp ort for the multilateral 
trading system and their belief that bilateral trad e agreements that were both WTO-consistent and 
WTO-plus could be positive building bl ocks to global trade liberalization.  Trade liberalization, at the 
global, regional and bilateral le vel, would help increase economic  growth and create wealth and 
employment.   
B. SECTION I - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT   
6. The representative of Australia  wondered what the fill rates on the tariff-rate quotas (TRQs)  
found in Annex 2B and Annex 2C ha d been since implementation of the Agreement;  if they had  
increased in line with increases speci fied in the text;  what impact these preferential TRQs had on 
third parties;  and whether there was a process for reallocation of unused quotas. 
7. The representative of the European Communities  shared the view expressed by the 
representative of the United States that WTO-comp atible and WTO-plus regional trade agreements 
were good for the multilateral trading system.  His qu estions concerned the scope of the Agreement.  
In Table 3.1A of document WT/REG161/3, the total trade value of United States imports from 
Singapore was stated as USD 13.246 billion, wher eas page 10 of Annex I.A gave a figure of USD 
15.1 billion for trade in the same year;  he wonder ed if the Parties could provide the statistics of 
coverage with the statistics used in the Annex.  While neither Party had exceeded a ten year transition 
period, he had noticed that the Agreement displaye d what he called "inverted asymmetry", similar to 
that found in the FTA between the United States an d Chile, whereby the United States had greater 
leeway than its counterpart under the Agreement.  For instance, although there were 2.5 times more imports from the United States to Singapore than th e reverse, Singapore had not used a transition 
period while the United States had used a transition period and applied tariff-rate quotas.  Given that 
there was no trade on record for the tariff-rate quotas used, he wondered why the United States had 
felt it necessary to maintain tariff-rate quotas for ten years. 
8. The representative of United States
 agreed to answer the ques tions from the representative of 
Australia in writing.  She added that twelve-month trade for 2004 had just been issued and once it had 
been processed, she would be able to provide an an swer using the fullest data.  In response to the 
question by the representative of th e European Communities regarding differences in the trade figures 
between the Tables and the Annex in document WT /REG161/3, she explained that the Table was 
based on imports for consumption, that is goods wh ich actually entered the United States and stayed, 
while the Annex figures were general imports which included products that entered the United States 
and were re-exported.  Since these tw o sets of data were available at di fferent levels of aggregation, to 
report in as much detail as possible the imports for c onsumption had been used in the Table.  As for 
the transition period, the Parties had decided upon it given the composition of trade between them.  As 
for the point made on asymmetry, she said that Singapore had no tariffs and the tariff-rate quotas 
maintained in the Agreement reflected products which were sensitive for a variety of reasons. 
C. SECTION II - TRADE PROVISIONS  
9. The representative of the European Communities  asked for a clarification of the possible 
restriction of exports of unprocessed timber from th e western United States.  He noted that similar WT/REG161/M/1 
Page 4  
 
 exceptions had not been included in the FTA betw een the United States and Chile and he wondered 
why it was felt necessary to have this provision in th is Agreement.  Given that it was possible to have 
export restrictions under the WTO rules, not least under Article XX, he wondered what the legal basis 
foreseen under the WTO was.   
10. The representative of the United States
 replied that the restriction on the export of 
unprocessed timber was part of the FTA between th e United States and Chile and although it might 
have been described differently, the provision was the same.  Her delegation was confident that the 
provision which was related to the protection of e xhaustible natural resource s was consistent with 
WTO obligations. 
11. In relation to Annexes 3B and 3C, the representative of Switzerland  asked what the rationale 
was behind the so-called Integrated Sourcing  Initiative and Remanufactured Products.  The 
representative of the European Communities  said he would submit questions on the Integrated 
Sourcing Initiative in writing.  It was his understanding that under the Agreement the United States had waived its Merchandise Processing Fee or MPF on certain goods that originated in Indonesia 
rather than in Singapore;  he asked for confirmati on that imports of the same goods from elsewhere in 
Indonesia or from third countries remained subject to the fee.  Regarding Annex 3B, did this mean 
that the normal rules of origin did not apply to those products, and were these specific rules for the 
products which were on the list?  As for Article 3.17 regarding the special rules of origin for certain 
apparel goods, it seemed that these only applie d when importing into the United States from 
Singapore.  There was a link to the availability of  imports in the importing country and he wondered 
how that fitted with the concept of origin in other pa rts of the rules of origin chapter.  He agreed to 
submit further questions in writing on the rules of origin chapter once his delegation had had time to 
analyse it further.   
12. The representative of the United States
 said she would be pleased to answer the questions 
from the delegations of Switzerland and the Europe an Communities in writing.   She emphasized that 
the Agreement covered trade between the United Stat es and Singapore.  There were no third parties to 
it.   
13. The representative of Australia  asked if any safeguard measures had been invoked under the 
Agreement and what the significant differences were between the safeguards chapter of the 
Agreement and the WTO Agreement on Safeguard s.  The representative of the United States  replied 
that the safeguard provisions of the Agreement ha d not been invoked and that she would respond in 
writing regarding any differences between safeguard s in the Agreement and the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards. 
D. SECTION IV - OTHER  
14. The representative of the European Communities  had three questions on government 
procurement.  First, concerning Article 13.2.2(c) , which extended the scope of the United States-
Singapore commitments under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) to build, 
operate, transfer (BOT) contracts, he asked what rules applied to the bidding and contract award 
process for BOT contracts.  Second, regarding Article  13.3 which incorporated most of the provisions 
of the GPA, but which made no reference to Article  17 of it, he wondered how transparency in the 
tender process was ensured for procurement covered by the Agreement.  What transparency rules 
applied to procurement covered by the Agreement and not covered by the GPA?  His third question 
concerned Note 1 of Article 1.1 of the GPA, which was related to tied aid to developing countries and 
how it related to this Agreement.  In particul ar, he wondered what commitments the Parties had 
undertaken on procurement related to international aid to developing countries.  The representative of 
the United States  said she would reply to the questions on government procurement in writing.    WT/REG161/M/1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 15. The Chairman  said that the first round of examinatio n of the goods aspects of the Free Trade 
Agreement between the United States and Singapor e had allowed the Committee to clarify a number 
of questions, but some others were pending.  He i nvited those delegations wishing to ask questions to 
forward them in writing to the Secretariat by 11 March and Parties to submit replies  in writing by 22 
April . 
16. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
Services aspects 
 
17. The Chairman  noted that the Agreement had been notified in December 2003 in document 
S/C/N/263;  he recalled that the decision to refer this Agreement for examination to the CRTA had 
been taken on 25 March 2004 by the Council for Tr ade in Services, as contained in document 
S/C/M/72.  Pursuant to paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the GATS, the CRTA should examine the services aspects of the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Singapore and report to the Council for Trade in Services on its consistency.  
E. S
ECTION I - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT  
18. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation was in the process 
of reviewing the services aspects of this Agreement, in particular the scope, and that he would submit 
written questions concerning a number of aspects, nota bly those which he had already raised in the 
context of the examination of the FTA between the United States and Chile.   
F. SECTION II – PROVISIONS AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES  
19. The representative of Japan  asked the Parties to confirm wh ether all the commitments made 
under the United States-Singapore Agreement went be yond their respective GATS commitments.  In 
response, the representative of the Singapore  confirmed that both Parties had made commitments that 
were equal to, or greater than, the commitments they had made in the WTO under the GATS.   
20. The representative of Australia  enquired about the Parties' intentions concerning further 
liberalization of non-conforming measures.  In reponse, the representative of Singapore  said that in 
the context of the review which had recently taken place, the Parties continued to review the 
Agreement which included liberalizing or making deeper commitments in sectors committed thus far.     
21. The Chairman  said that the first round of examina tion of the services aspects of the Free 
Trade Agreement between the United States and Si ngapore had allowed the Committee to clarify a 
number of questions, but others were pending.  He invited those delegations wishing to ask questions 
to forward them in writing to the Secretaria t by 11 March and Parties to submit replies  in writing by 
22 April . 
22. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________