Singapore-Pacific Alliance free trade agreement enters into force for Republic, Chile and Peru
The five-country FTA will enter into force for Colombo and Mexico when they complete the process. ST PHOTO: BRIAN TEO
SINGAPORE - A free trade agreement has entered into force for Singapore, Chile and Peru, three of the five partner countries in the Pacific Alliance-Singapore FTA, said Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) on May 5.
The pact will give Singapore companies greater access to the Pacific Alliance countries - Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru - that are collectively deemed as the world's ninth-largest economy in the world with a total population of 235 million.
The PASFTA was signed on Jan 26, 2022. Singapore ratified the agreement in July 2022 and Peru in February 2023. Chile ratified the pact in March 2025, bringing the PASFTA into force for the three countries first.
The PASFTA will enter into force for Colombia and Mexico upon the completion of their ratification procedures.
The free trade pact will scrap most tariffs on goods traded between partner countries and improve transparency and efficiency of customs procedural processing.
Singapore service suppliers and investors will be treated as favourable as those in the Pacific Alliance. Also, Singapore firms will not be required to appoint individuals of any particular nationality to senior management.
The four countries of the Pacific Alliance have a combined gross domestic product of more than US$2.7 trillion (S$3.51 trillion) in nominal terms, accounting for about 40 per cent of the total GDP of the Latin America and the Caribbean region, according to the World Bank.
Singapore is already FTA partners with Chile and Mexico through the existing Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and with Peru through the CPTPP and the bilateral Peru-Singapore FTA.
MTI said Singapore's bilateral trade with the Pacific Alliance in 2024 was $12.5 billion. Some top traded products include electric machinery, refined metal products, cocoa products, wine and seafood.
About 100 Singapore companies are already operating across the Pacific Alliance markets, mostly in sectors including technology and the digital economy, food trade, infrastructure, and port management and logistics.
Singapore's Olam Food Ingredients (OFI) has established itself as a leading coffee exporter in the market. It sources high quality beans directly from farmers in Colombia, Mexico and Peru for its global customer base.
Mr Manish Dhawan, OFI's president of coffee division, said his company sees clear benefits in PASFTA helping it better serve high-quality sustainable ingredients to roasters and manufacturing customers worldwide.
He said the PASFTA is expected to reduce tariffs and export costs, provide a streamlined regulatory framework, simplify customs procedures, and enhance trade facilitation provisions.
'These changes are timely and will enable OFI to better support customers by navigating increasing tariff risks in the market today. Enhanced trade flows can also empower businesses like ours to scale investments in the region, and foster greater innovation,' said Mr Dhawan.
Experts believe increased access to relatively new markets will be critical for Singapore companies at a time when the world's largest economy - the United States - has turned hostile towards the global trading order it helped establish after World War II .
Amid the turmoil, Singapore has vowed to continue strengthening multilateralism and free trade, and seek new opportunities in less-explored markets for its businesses.
MTI said the PASFTA - Singapore's 28th FTA - is a comprehensive agreement containing 25 chapters, including trade in goods, services, and investment, small and medium-sized enterprises, good regulatory practices for trade and investment, and electronic commerce.
The PASFTA is Singapore's first FTA with a chapter on international maritime transport services. This chapter aims to enhance physical connectivity between partner countries and facilitate the exchange of best practices and training opportunities.
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
38 minutes ago
- Business Times
Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
[SINGAPORE] The Appellate Division of the High Court has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The ruling on Thursday (Jun 5) said that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Appellate Division agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Appellate Division said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Appellate Division therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. It also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.
AsiaOne
42 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
American group distributing aid in Gaza delays reopening sites, World News
CAIRO/JERUSALEM — A controversial private company distributing aid in Gaza, backed by the US and Israel, had yet to reopen its distribution sites in the enclave by mid-morning on Thursday (June 5), a day after shutting them following a series of deadly shootings close to its operations. The US-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation had said on Wednesday that its sites would not reopen at their usual time due to maintenance and repair work. It did not say when the locations would reopen. A Palestinian father of four in Gaza's Khan Younis, who asked not to be identified over safety concerns, told Reuters the GHF site in nearby Rafah had not reopened by mid morning. GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [[nid:718722]]
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Appeals Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
[SINGAPORE] The Court of Appeal has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The court ruled on Thursday (Jun 5) that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Court of Appeal said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Court of Appeal therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. The Court of Appeal also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.
