Twice abducted by repatriation agents, Asadullah goes home poorer than when he arrived
Posted By: Debbie | Categories: Articles, Stories | Dated: December 31, 2011 Among the one million medical tourists spending some one billion dollars on medical services this year was the Bangladeshi Minister of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment. His ministry was established in December 2001 for the purpose of ensuring the welfare of the expatriate workers and the enhancement of the overseas employment. The minister’s visit was personal, and so the interests of millions of Bangladeshi migrants working in foreign countries would have to wait.
During the minister’s visit, he did not have the time to hear the stories of any of the Bangladeshis who are compelled by the grossly inadequate salaried positions in Bangladesh to travel to Singapore to find work. If he had listened to any of these men, he might have considered that in encouraging remittances from work overseas, his ministry is driving migrants into the unscrupulous hands of Bangladeshi agents and their Singaporean accomplices.
He might have, for instance, been able to talk to Asadullah, and hear how his employer hired gangsters to abduct him from the workplace to repatriate him before he could lodge a complaint with the Singapore Ministry of Manpower (MOM). He might have heard from Asadullah’s co-workers how they were enduring the same predicament, and how they continue working without a peek out of fear of being sent home. Such incidents occur daily, even on International Migrants Day, 18 December, when the international community should be standing in solidarity to protect the interest of the world’s rapidly growing migrant population.
Mohamed Asadullah
Working twelve hours a day
Asadullah’s circumstances are not unusual. He arrived in Singapore in May 2011, to promises of $700/month as basic salary, overtime at 1.5 times the hourly rate, and Sundays and public holidays at twice the hourly rate. It sounded good: the agent fees of over $4,000 could be covered within six months, he and his workmates assumed.
Every day the men worked a full twelve hours, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. With an hour for lunch, this would be three hours of overtime. Yet they received only about $450 a month for the first four months.
The difference is explained partly by the deduction of $200 from each man’s pay for the first four months. As recounted by one worker, the boss said the agent in Bangladesh didn’t pay him his full cut, so he had to take it from the salary. The employer attempted several times to force the men to sign a paper saying that they’d taken a loan of $800 so that, if necessary, he could explain and prove this deduction was the return of a personal loan.
In addition to the $800 that the employer extracted from at least the 22 workers who spoke to Transient Workers Count Too, he also deducted $60 each month as a savings scheme. This is a common scheme that sounds beneficial to the worker, but is often hard to prove and impossible to recoup. Singapore regulations require the worker to lodge a salary complaint within one year of the money being withheld, so if the men are to continue working for two years, they have little hope of recovering the deductions that are more than a year old.
Although the men are given time sheets showing the hours they work, they aren’t given proper recording of the salaries which makes it difficult for them to understand how the amount enclosed is calculated. These men received their salary in cash in envelopes scrawled with a few barely-decipherable numbers. The written amounts didn’t necessarily match the cash enclosed, and there was no indication of the days or hours worked, or the reasons for the deductions.
One man had $2,000 deducted when two small engines went missing during his lunch break; another man had $2,200 deducted when a camera fell into a manhole. The Employment Act states that the deduction shall not exceed the loss caused to the employer by the neglect or default of the employee, and except with the permission of the Commissioner shall not exceed one quarter of one month’s wages. These two deductions were far in excess of the value of the items lost, and were three to four times more than the men’s monthly salary.
The workers had to live amidst machinery
Fruitless visit to Ministry of Manpower
After seven months of this, realising that the repayment of the initial placement fee would take longer than expected, the men decided to appeal to MOM. On 9 December, 22 men went to MOM’s headquarters to discuss their situation. Two men were allowed inside a small conference room to talk to the MOM officer while the others waited outside. The female officer told them not to be frightened of the boss, whom the men called Ah Tee. However, the MOM is always keen to resolve differences as agreeably as possible and so called the employer to persuade him to resolve the issue. He promised to pay all outstanding amounts, and the men agreed not to lodge a formal complaint.
More economical than making the promised payments is eliminating the group leader. On 12 December, as Asadullah returned to the dormitory from work, a group was waiting to apprehend him. Asadullah noted that they were from the A Team Repatriation Company. Three or four tough-looking men bundled him into a car and, without allowing him to gather his personal belongings, drove him straight to the airport. Because the employers generally hold the workers’ passports, there was no need for Asadullah to make a stop in the dormitory.
Possibly because the lorry returning the men from the worksite that evening had been delayed, Asadullah and his escorts arrived too late for the flight. The A Team men took him that night to a room above a motorcycle repair shop where he was locked up without his handphone until the following day when they went again to the airport.
The government might like to think that forced repatriation does not exist because any worker can contact the police at the airport and inform them of outstanding medical or salary issues, and the police will ensure that the man is allowed to lodge a claim with MOM. In practice, this depends on the worker knowing that he has this right, having the confidence and language to take this action, believing that the police will assist him, and possessing the money to return to the city and find a safe place to stay the night.
Having spent one night and one day with the A Team men, Asadullah was reluctant to notify the police before he passed through immigration. He didn’t want to exit the passenger terminal to find them waiting for him again. He waited for some time before contacting the police who listened to his story and allowed him to leave the airport. Fortunately he had the resources to return to Little India and find lodging for the night.
Too trusting of employers
The following day, 13 December, he visited the MOM branch that deals with salary issues where he wrote out his statement.
After calling and talking to Ah Tee and Guna (the workers’ supervisor), the MOM officer told Asadullah that he couldn’t help him because the work permit had been cancelled and the employer had purchased the air ticket. The officer said that the employer had made new arrangements for his repatriation on the 16th and that he would call the police if he absconded. On this basis, Asadullah was given a special pass to legalise his stay for exactly those three days to the 16th.
This didn’t make sense to Asadullah, still concerned that neither he nor his fellow workers had received the correct amount. But MOM may again have been looking to resolve this issue by trusting the employer to pay outstanding monies before sending him home.
A recent newspaper article advises employers to treat their workers fairly. They are admonished to look after the welfare of the migrant workers and treat them fairly, “even as they tighten their belts in anticipation of the economic downturn.” The Minister of State for Manpower Tan Chuan Jin would like to hold the employers more accountable for the basic human rights and welfare of the workers. This looks laudable in print, but in practice employers have long exploited opportunities for extracting money from workers, often entirely aside from what they gain from work performed.
Thugs waiting right outside the ministry
Looking to the Bangladeshi High Commission for support, Asadullah also visited that office to state his claim, and received a letter from them addressed to the MOM explaining his complaint. When he presented this letter to the MOM on 16 December, he was assured that he had the right to this unpaid amount and should not board the plane unless he received it. Yet as he left the MOM office, he was met again by the company lorry and their toughs who relieved him of his handphone and drove him again to the airport. They had been lying in wait outside the ministry building itself.
Fortunately, a friend saw Asadullah being bundled away and quickly informed TWC2. Nonetheless, Asadullah remained uncontactable as the clock counted down to his departure. While TWC2 brought the matter to MOM’s urgent attention, repeated calls by MOM to Asadullah’s number got no answer.
Fortunately again, the repatriation agents returned the handphone to Asadullah before he approached the ticket counter for the boarding pass, and it was then, before he entered the transit terminal, that the MOM officer managed to reach him, telling him not to leave without the money he was owed. Had the toughs not returned the phone to Asadullah as he entered the passenger terminal, he might have been frightened enough to continue and board the plane.
On getting the phone call from MOM, Asadullah informed the company thugs that he had MOM’s support, and returned a second time to the city, pleased to have escaped this second attempted repatriation, but worried that without a special pass he might be apprehended by the police as an illegal overstayer.
Stand-off at the dormitory
The next evening Debbie Fordyce from TWC2 and A K Mohsin, a friend of the organisation wanted to discuss the matter with the other men from this company. Asadullah led Mohsin and Debbie to the company dormitory at Tagore Lane.
Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali polymath and Nobel Laureate for whom this area is named, visited Singapore in 1927. Tagore’s great contributions to Bengali literature and music are recalled in disturbing contrast to the large number of Bangladeshi workers who are miserably housed in this far corner of the island. Would that people in positions of influence such as the visiting Minister of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment take the same interest in the social and political milieu of Singapore as did Rabindranath Tagore.
The men from Asadullah’s company engaged Mohsin and Debbie in informative and animated conversation, showing the shabby envelopes that contained their meager pay, explaining the various deductions and odd salary calculations (see header image). They described how their employer arranges for them to work in non-construction jobs for other bosses, allowing him to take a hefty cut of the salary while they receive the pauper’s share. While the men were caught up in this, one of the company supervisors caught wind of the visitors to the company dormitory and notified the police, summoning six officers who arrived to investigate. The Singapore police are concerned that all gatherings of people be managed properly. Had this gathering taken place in the street outside the premises, it might have constituted an illegal assembly. Had the visitors been inside the dormitory, they might have been trespassing. Fortunately, they were somewhere in-between, in the courtyard outside the building and open to the street. But unfortunately for Asadullah, he had no papers showing a legal status and was detained by the police.
The MOM officer assured TWC2 two days later, on 20 December, that no action would be taken against him. He was repatriated to Bangladesh that same day this time with the $2,000 that was at the heart of the dispute, but still poorer than if he had never set foot in Singapore.
The other men will have to consider whether they wish to make complaints of their own.
Some of the workers have received reimbursement for previous deductions, a hopeful sign, but it remains to be seen what they will do, having paid so much for the job and still desperately in debt, yet responsible for their families. Although many are outspoken in their assessment of the situation, they hesitate to take action. “I scared to talk to MOM. I talk to boss he say, ‘You do this one. If never do, I send back.’ Boss send back, then how?”
Asadullah tells his countrymen to be careful about taking jobs in Singapore
Posted By: webmaster | Categories: Articles, Stories | Dated: December 31, 2011
In this short video, construction worker Md Asadullah Late Md Hasan Uddin speaks to his fellow countrymen in Bengali, advising them to be extra careful when seeking jobs in Singapore. The video was made in December 2011 when Asadullah was repeatedly abducted by repatriation agents who packed him off to the airport for deportation without his employer settling his unpaid salaries.
Here is an English translation, courtesy of AKM Mohsin:
My name is Mohamed Asadullah and I worked for a company called Lian Shing Construction Private Limited
The company was supposed to pay us $700 basic monthly salary, with 3 hours of overtime, (to be calculated) based on basic salary.
There are 130 workers from Bangladesh working for this company, and they are in a similar situation as I am. We work very hard and adhere to company rules but in return we don’t get paid regularly.
We went to the Bangladeshi High Commission, who wrote one letter to the Ministry of Manpower, but did nothing else.
Each time we asked our employer for our salaries, he threatened to send us back to Bangladesh with the help of repatriation agents. There were many different kinds of threats and we cannot continue with this company.
We paid a lot of money to obtain this employment. Some workers have been here only 3 months, others 6 months. If we are to be sent back home, we will lose everything. We are very uncertain about our future. If the company repatriates us, there is nothing to do in Bangladesh; we are very poor.
My appeal to everybody is that, in future, if anyone wants to come (to Singapore to work), find out the the condition of the company, the salary, etc. Everything must be clear before coming.
Situation of Bangladeshi migrant workers in Singapore
Article by Debbie Fordyce
Two years ago, in October 2009, I wrote a letter about Bangladeshi Migrant Workers which was presented to the Labour Minister, Mr. Khandker Mosharraf Hossain, during his visit to Singapore. That letter appears beneath this piece, and immediately below is a review of the situation now in October 2011.
October 2011
The situation of the Bangladeshi workers in Singapore October 2011 is no better now than it was several years ago. More regulations have been enforced, some transgressions recognized, some loopholes tightened, but the methods of deception and the desperation to find decent paying jobs have increased in scope and complexity. The media in Singapore rarely expose the depth of the problem, preferring to concentrate on issues that can be handled by the employer and the Ministry of Manpower so that the level of profit for the employer is satisfactory and the level of risk for the worker is acceptable.
Singapore now hosts 1.3 million foreign workers, with Bangladeshis a sizable chunk of that number. Several years ago, 2008 and 2009, thousands of work permit holders were lured in to no-work-no-pay situations. They were restrained during the day to prevent them from lodging complaints, and when they did eventually reach Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the numbers were overwhelming and they were sent home with a token amount of money, $50 in many cases. Without having actually worked for their employer, many did not even realize that they ought to have received a basic salary for months they spent at the company, though all returned with a huge sense of outrage and injustice.
From 2003 to 2009 a large number of men
arrived on tourist visas expecting to receive legal work and work permits after arrival. At that time visitors were not finger printed, and a tourist visa is easier to obtain than an in-principal approval for a work permit, because it doesn’t involve negotiations with the Singapore employers. When men realize that they must resort to illegal work, several options are open. Stolen work permits are available for purchase, counterfeit special passes, work permits and other identification will suffice with the employer. The man's own passport and return ticket can also be resold to others ready to return home. With willing young men eager to try their luck, many Bangladeshi men traveled to Singapore to make their fortune. Some were truly shocked to find themselves abandoned at the airport or at coffee shops in Little India after giving their passport and return ticket to the 'agent' to arrange work. Others knew full well that illegal work would be their means to supporting the family.
Many of these men were sent back by immigration authorities before stepping out of the airport on the Singapore side, and many more wound up on the streets when they realized they’d been hoodwinked and no jobs awaited them. Whether the extreme hardship of jail and caning for overstaying the tourist visa makes the visit worthwhile depends on how long the man was able to evade the police and how much he earned during that time. As painful as caning and incarceration is, the illegal work can pay 2 to 3 times as much as the legal work. The worker exchanges job security and insurance for the higher pay of illegal work, often with a counterfeit or stolen work permit.
For the men arriving now in 2011, we still find ‘agents’ using systematic methods to hire Bangladeshi workers and place them in companies that don’t provide jobs, or offer unacceptable working conditions continues. The power and reach of the agents and recruiters gives a wag-the-dog imbalance to the process.
The term ‘agent’ suggests someone with an office with reputable connections and procedures, which obscures the nature of their work, and the destruction they cause to ordinary lives. Rogue agent, or swindler would better describe the deception they use in exploiting the trust of the man and destroying his and his family’s livelihood. For clarity, I’ll use ‘rogue agent’ instead of the respectable sounding ‘agent.’
Training centres are an important part of this deceptive process. The more elaborate the process of the application and the grooming of the worker, the greater his expectations and his belief in the eventual rewards of the job. An entire business is established to swindle the men into believing they can become rich from this deal. When the man fails in this attempt, his debt forces him to try again.
More and more Bangladeshis are becoming permanent residents and Singapore citizens, and are setting up companies to employ Bangladeshi workers. It used to be that the recruiters relied on Singaporean employers to provide the company that issued the IP. Now the employers are increasingly likely to be Bangladeshis, who have a more intimate relationship with the men who recruit workers.
The rogue agents themselves are work permit holders and yet do none of the physical work. Their responsibility is to control the other workers, which often means finding reasons or excuses to send them back. As long as workers are not sent back in large groups, or too many at a time, the MOM finds nothing unusual about the repatriation of workers.
So desperate are men to believe that the Golden Deer exists in Singapore, and so sweet are the words to convince them of this, that they will even pay rogue agents in Singapore for job opportunities for relatives still in Bangladesh. The victims are not necessarily men who’ve never left the village, but men who should know the dangers of handing large sums of money to strangers. Rogue agents can persuade men to part with huge amounts of money without offering any of their own personal details, and victims are cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars with no way to trace the person who stole their money. It’s not possible to make a police report without the full name, passport or work permit details, address and employer.
Those tactics are sometimes similar to internet scams or phone scams. Once the victim is willing to pay a portion of the money, the rogue agent knows that he’s likely to continue to pay rather than extract himself from the deal. One rogue agent saw how easily he managed to get a man to pay the $8,000 for the job, and so convinced him that 19 more men were needed before the company could begin the project. In that way, the would-be worker suddenly became a recruiter himself, pressuring his friends and relatives to each pay $8,000 for work he later realized was a scam.
This level of trust might have been appropriate when people knew their neighbours and trusted the authorities. The collusion between recruiters and hundi wallahs and government officials is well-known but difficult to trace.
The immediate victim is the man may who was cheated out of his money, his family’s land, his children’s or his younger siblings’ education, medical bills for sick family members, but the long-term victim is the whole of Bangladeshi society when large swathes of society are torn apart and impoverished by this filthy business.
October 2009
(Letter presented to the Labour Minister, Mr. Khandker Mosharraf Hossain, during his visit to Singapore)
The situation of the Bangladeshi workers in Singapore is deplorable enough to be considered abhorrent if not criminal. From the mainstream media we read of the kinds of incidents that one might expect to find in construction and shipping industries that employ foreign workers: insufficient safety measures, work site accidents leading to permanent disability or death, unsatisfactory living conditions, unpaid or underpaid salary, no days off, unauthorized deductions, inability to switch jobs or resign without penalties, etc.
While these problems need to be addressed and minimized, more problematic is the systematic and institutionalized method of hiring Bangladeshi workers through agents and placing them in companies that are unable to provide jobs. Singapore now hosts over 1 million foreign workers, with Bangladeshis a sizable chunk of that number. The media reports indicate thousands of workers without jobs or salary, though groups working with foreign workers believe the number could be tens of thousands. Workers from both reputable and disreputable companies estimate that over 50% of the Bangladeshi workers who come to Singapore return no richer than they came.
Bangladeshi agents are responsible in large part for this debt burden. The unlicensed agents who provide workers to the companies that employ them but have no proper work for them demonstrate a thorough knowledge of employment laws that enables them to avoid scrutiny and criminal investigation. The intimate yet hazy relationship between agents and the company owners protects both parties and allows money to flow freely and largely undetected while workers enter Singapore with work permits.
Each worker is asked to pay S$8,000 to S$9,000 to cover the range of fees for training, medical exams, passports and certificates, insurance, the foreign worker’s levy and security bond, and finally for expediting the process. Once in Singapore and granted the work permit, the workers may be held for months with promises of work to and training programs to look forward to. The deplorable facilities to house the workers, paucity of equipment, professional training, food, medical care, proper contracts and salary slips suggests the company was set up with the purpose of collecting fees from workers rather than providing them with work. The utter lack of work confirms this suspicion.
These men may be given work through deployment to other worksites, which is illegal and also enables the employer to take a huge cut of their earnings. This practice seems aimed at convincing the workers to wait longer still for steady work and to refrain from bringing complaints to the authorities. The threat of being sent back with nothing is a more convincing reason to withhold complaints. Men who have already paid so much are in no position to challenge the decisions of the boss. Even the well educated and competent are often kept in a state of fear, which prevents them from questioning company rules or demanding proper documentation.
While labour agents see the fees as profit, there is substantial proof that these fees are shared with employers. Employers take money from workers in return for giving them work permits, and then fail to provide them with work. A monumental scam is taking place in bringing workers from Bangladesh, a scam the scope of which is not seen in the employment of other nationalities.
Without a doubt agents are bringing in thousands if not tens of thousands of workers and placing them with companies that have no actual work or facilities. Investigation into the companies ought to be made before the in-principal approval (IP) is provided by Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Protection of workers and enforcement of the employment act for the benefit of both employer and employee is the writ of the MOM. Indeed this IP is checked and signed off by the Bangladeshi High Commission before the papers are sent to Bangladesh. Rather than conducting an investigation or even glancing at the record of the company seeking to employ workers, the Bangladeshi High Commission simply affixes an approval on applications, and the Singapore Ministry of Manpower likewise fails to exercise diligence in looking into the company. The MOM states they can’t be expected to check on every company since the system by and large serves Singapore well. One might assume negligence or financial incentive in the manner the Bangladeshi High Commission approves the IP.
Transactions are in cash and so difficult to detect, and workers are rarely given receipts. The workers are aware soon after their arrival in Singapore that they have been cheated and may never be granted the work or the salary promised. The remittances to Bangladesh from workers with well-paid jobs may appear to add to the GDP, though the remittances may actually be fact be little more or less than the amount that leaves Bangladesh to secure the job.
The Ministry of Manpower employment act list numerous protective measures such as prompt payment of salary, limiting overtime work, calculation of pay for overtime work, rest days, sick leave, unauthorized deductions, termination of contract, housing, and compensation for injuries. The MOM does assist when the company is willing to comply, but with the errant companies the MOM tells the workers to work out the problem themselves.
Migration has transformed the lives of the people of Bangladesh. A job in Singapore has become the ultimate dream for those who have never been outside Bangladesh. Yet many migrants end up in a situation worse than the one they left.
The poverty and lack of salaried jobs in certain areas of Bangladesh and the lure of countries experiencing rapid economic growth like Singapore are the impetus for men to seek work abroad. Debt incurred can be paid off only with two good years working with a reliable company in Singapore. When the company turns out to be exploiting workers for the money they pay for the job rather than employing and paying them for their labour, the workers future and that of his family is ruined.
Many sell or mortgage the family land, borrow from relatives and loan sharks, and use family savings meant for sisters’ dowry or investment in education. The entire family depends on the man who travels abroad to work, and he himself is encouraged and valued by family for his risk-taking and fortune seeking. When so many futures are lost to these unsuccessful job ventures, the families who provide the backbone of the country’s agriculture, who offer hope for the future of Bangladesh become dysfunctional and powerless. Those who gain are the agents and recruiters, the illegal and unlicensed middlemen, the Bangladeshis with undocumented personal relations with company owners, and the money-lenders.
For the sake of the workers, their families, their communities and their future, please listen to the tragedies the men face when they come to Singapore. Pay attention to the numerous articles in the Singapore media, the online media, the Bengali paper Banglar Kantha published in Singapore, the NGO’s who assist and advocate for the workers in distress, and the workers themselves. Tens of thousands have returned in tears, ruined and wracked with fear at their inability to repay loans, severely distressed at having provided nothing for their families and lost everything. Their voices are compelling, heart wrenching, and articulate. Listen to the people who champion the rights of the workers and to the workers themselves rather than those in power who stand to gain from their losses.
They pay with their past and future - and get nothing
Article by John Gee
Migrant workers are exploited: that's a fact. If everything turns out well for them, they go abroad, work, and have something to show for all their sacrifices by the time they return. Even so, they know that they got their jobs in a foreign country because locals would not do them for the pay on offer. There are worse deals. In every country where migrant workers are recruited, it is common for them to be told lies about the conditions they will face: work abroad is made to sound appealing and the truth about real pay levels, costs and conditions only comes out when it is too late to turn back.
But there is worse. If this is exploitation, what is it called when it is not the fruits of a worker's present day labour that go to other people, but the products of his past labour and maybe those of his family too? This is the bogus jobs scam and it is happening now.
As a Singaporean group working for the wellbeing of migrant workers, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) has encountered some bad deals for migrant workers since it started work five years ago, but there’s one we've been seeing more recently that takes a lot of beating. We've chiefly seen it in the shipyard sector in Singapore, but we know of some examples in the construction industry. It is happening in other places too. A well informed source from the Gulf region said he has heard of similar operations. "It's mainly Bangladeshis", he adds.
The process works like this.
Large contractors apply for permission to take on a certain number of foreign workers to carry out a project. They often apply for more workers than they eventually need, so they sell the surplus to sub-contractors. This is not a problem when the sub-contractors are committed to work on genuine projects, but it becomes one when they aren’t aiming to hire workers to do real jobs.
They work in collaboration with recruiters in relatively poor home countries. The main targets are Bangladeshis and Indians. Migrant domestic workers and many male construction workers typically go into debt with their agents or employers and then their debt is repaid by deductions from their earnings over a period of eight months or so. The bogus jobs scam depends on workers paying in advance for their placement. They are told that they will soon earn back that money and more.
Eager to seize what looks like a good chance to give their families a better living, men pay S$8,000/US$5,350 or more in fees and expenses. The money is raised by selling valuables, land or even their homes. Some men borrow money from relatives. It can amount to most of a family's wealth, including inherited property.
In the Singapore case, when 'In Principle Approval' is given for the men to come to work, it should mean that there are jobs for them to do, and that they will be paid for their work, according to the law. Those who are the victims of the bogus jobs scam soon find out that they have been misled. There is no daily work for them, much less a chance to top up earnings with overtime.
Workers have complained about contractors having employees use violence on them if they start to raise demands for better treatment and for the work they were promised.
Some sub-contractors are reported to have gone to some lengths to prevent the workers from making a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM, the ministry that deals with labour affairs in Singapore). They take their passports away from the workers and confine them during the hours when the MOM offices are open. They try to send the workers out of the country without giving them any chance to communicate with the MOM.
Some men are paid for a few months, though they may do little or no work, and are then sent home: parting with a few hundred dollars in salary payment is a small cost to bear when the company stands to gain more as its share of the advance payment made by the workers.
In the worst cases, the employer tries to avoid paying them, or recoups payments through charges and fines, before sending the workers back.
The money made out of the workers ends up being split between the recruiters in the home country and the recipient firm. Their costs are estimated to amount to well under half of what the workers pay to obtain work in the first place.
This is not the exploitation of the workers' current labour, but a scheme for the fruits of their past labour and that of their families. In the process, some workers are deprived of their future too. Ashamed to return home empty handed, some avoid going back to their families after they are sent back to their countries. Some are driven to feel like taking their own lives. There are also workers who have run away from the subcontractors to try to obtain paid work, but without their passports or appropriate work permits, they run the risk of being arrested, caned, imprisoned and deported.
This abuse was reported on Al-Jazeera International on 20th September 2008, and later in articles in ‘The New Paper’ and ‘Straits Times’. On 11th October, the Ministry of Manpower issued a press statement saying that workers at three named companies - San’s Marine, Han’s Marine and K-7 Engineering - have to be paid their outstanding salaries. TWC2 later heard that 35 out of 50 workers from these companies have been enabled by MOM to find employment elsewhere, as have 27 men from Dong San Engineering and a few from Twin Engineering, firms that have also been the subject of complaint.
The issue of workers who are exploited this way was raised in Parliament by MPs Halima Yacob, Irene Ng and Baey Yam Keng on 21st October. TWC2 has also written on the subject to the Ministry of Manpower. It pointed out:
The workers came to Singapore expecting to be well paid compared to what they could earn in Bangladesh or India. It is very distressing for them to see their chances of making money slipping away when they have paid $8,000-$10,000 to come here. Therefore, MOM's statement that the workers must be paid whether or not the company has work for them or can deploy them is most welcome. They have done their part by being available to work and companies should pay them in full for all the time they should have been working.
In response, an MOM spokesperson wrote that it would help unpaid foreign workers to recover their salaries and that it will 'assist, on a case-by-case basis, foreign workers who are not given work to seek alternative employment'.
Even if this happens, it is not likely to make up for all the money workers paid out to begin with. Determined government action in Bangladesh and Singapore could help to end this form of abuse in the long term, but in the near future, a public alerted to the risk of losing their money in return for empty promises may be the best answer.
(The author is former president of Transient Workers Count Too. This article was first published in Banglar Kantha Jan-Feb 2009 Issue). )
Few articles on migrant workers
Jailing bosses who ill-treat foreign workers is good, but do more to help the victims
Source: Yahoo Singapore
"I felt like I was there to die"
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/felt-left-die-083030354.html
Source: CNN
Debts and dreams: Singapore's Migrant Workers
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/07/business/singapore-migrants/index.html
Source: AsiaOne
Us woman in S'pore lets foreign workers stay in her condo unit for free
http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111002-302742.html
Other related links on migrant workers:-
"Temporary migration of Bangladeshi Workers in Singapore: desirability and reality"
"Ancient illegal money moving system"
"Foreign workers bring local agency to court"
"The practice of employers getting kicbacks made illegal"
http://www.asiaone.com/News/The%2BNew%2BPaper/Story/A1Story20101123-248780.html
'Please give us work' '...and remember to pay us'
"Singapore raids 'jobs scam' firm"
Get Rea! – ‘A Bad Romance’
15th November 2011‘Get Rea!’ programme on Channel News Asia was about domestic workers and boyfriends. It featured a range of experiences, starting from the worker who is happily engaged to a Singaporean national, to women who are said to be taking advantage of their Bangladeshi boyfriends. From what interviewees said, it was clear that the possibility of a domestic worker having a boyfriend was not a good reason to deny her a day off. It included interviews with spokespeople for TWC2, HOME and BANGLAR KANTHA; the three institutions were acknowledged in the end credits.
Get Rea! ‘Foreign Workers: Lost in Transit’
13th September 2011, Channel News Asia’s Get Real! programme was on Workers in Transit. It featured a number of workers who are waiting injury or legal cases to be settled and who have no legal means of supporting themselves in the meantime. BANGLAR KANTHA & TWC2’s cooperation was acknowledged in the end credits.
Get Rea! ‘Adam Bapari’
25th November 2009, CNA (Channel News Asia) made a documentary focused on the Editor of BANGLAR KANTHA and as well as the situations of Bangladeshi Migrant workers in Singapore. CNA thanked the Editor of Banglar Kantha for the assistance in the documentary as well as the background music. BANGLAR KANTHA was also acknowledged in the end credits.
NHK Japan: ‘A Surging City: Singapore’
January 2009, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corp) Television made a documentary focused on Singapore and Bangladeshi Migrant Workers (‘A Surging City: Singapore’). NHK thanked BANGLAR KANTHA for assisting them in the making of the Documentary. BANGLAR KANTHA was also acknowledged in the end credits.
