Andrew Loh

Note: The following report has been edited to reflect more accurately what had transpired in the case of Asmad Kadir. This is because of clarification the writer has obtained with his sources.

Asmad Kadir (not his real name), who is owed some S$2,100 for 5-months’ work as a labourer, asked to meet with his employer at the Ministry of Manpower building on 14 May.  His employer had wanted to meet with him at his (the employer’s) office. However, having been assaulted previously at the office (see story below), Asmad asked for the meeting to be held at MOM instead.

At that designated time on Thursday, 14 May, after having arrived at the MOM’s building at Havelock Road, he called his employer’s brother, who goes by the name of Ganesh.  Asmad was told to come out of the building and meet with Ganesh. Asmad refused. Ganesh tried to coax Asmad into agreeing by promising Asmad that if he came out and met him, he would pay Asmad the entire amount owed to him.

An hour of negotiation ensued which lasted till 6pm, when the MOM building was to be closed. Asmad then had no choice but to go out and meet with Ganesh. There, Ganesh and another man, Biji,  insisted that Asmad signed the receipt for the money first before they paid him. Asmad told them he would not and that he will only sign after he has received the money. They got into a heated argument. The two men then seemed to relent and asked that they proceeded to a side street where Asmad will be issued a receipt.  “I feared for my safety,” Asmad said, “but I still went to the location with them.”

When they arrived at the new location, Ganesh and Biji  tried to force Asmad into a microvan by manhandling him. In the scuffle, Ganesh punched him, causing his lips to bleed. Biji grabbed the right side of his face. In the struggle, Asmad’s shirt was torn and he managed to free himself and fled. “This is not the first time Ganesh has assaulted me,” Asmad said in the police report he lodged against his employer’s brother.

Asmad Kadir, 28, has been working with Ocean Marine Engineering in Singapore since 2007. In February this year, he asked for the five months’ worth of salary owed to him to be paid.

He was called up to his employer’s office to discuss the issue. Asmad explained to his employer that his family back in Bangladesh needed the money urgently. In the course of the discussion, his employer slapped him across his left ear three times. “After I was slapped, I lost consciousness for a few minutes,” Asmad said in a separate police report he has made. His employer then asked him to go back to the dormitory to rest. Later that day, he felt “a lot of pain” in his left ear and called his employer, who promised to bring him to a doctor the next day after work. His employer did not do so.

It was only one week later, on 5 March, that Asmad himself went to see the doctor. He was given two days’ medical leave. When he showed the certificate to his employer, he did not believe the certificate was geuine. Subsequently, his employer gave him some ear drops and told him to go back to the dormitory to rest – but that he would have to report for work the next day.

Asmad’s problems, however, do not end there.

MOM’s dispute settlement

On 13 April, in a salary dispute mediation session overseen by MOM between Asmad and his employer, it was agreed that Asmad’s employer would pay him half of the salary owed and the other half “upon repatriation”, as stated in the agreement. However, till date, Asmad said he has been paid only S$300 out of the S$2,100 he is owed.

Because his work permit has been cancelled, and he is still awaiting full compensation and the outcome of the two police reports, Asmad needed to obtain a Special Pass which would allow him to remain in Singapore until these are resolved. On 15 May, he approached MOM, with all the documents he has, including the two police reports.

However, the MOM officer refused to look at the documents. She told Asmad that he would have to go to Changi airport where an employee of the Insurance Company and his employer were waiting for him to pay his full outstanding salary and to repatriate him. Asmad also said the officer said he had to “go home”.  Asmad can only speak a smattering of very simple English words and did not fully understand what the officer had said. He did not want to go to the airport as he was afraid that his employer would not pay him the full amount and repatriate him.

Without the Special Pass, Asmad is now considered an overstayer and could be forcibly repatriated anytime by the authorities.

As for the police report made  by Asmad on 14 May, the police has notified him that “preliminary inquiries into your police report is completed and it discloses an offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code… which is a non-seizable offence.”

Thus, in order for the police to proceed with further actions, Asmad would need to lodge a Magistrate’s Complaint at the Subordinate Courts. The Magistrate would then order the police to act as she sees fit.

Asmad may not get a chance to do so without a Special Pass.

He too will have to forfeit the salary still owed to him.

Asmad is now being taken care of by aid workers.


There are several serious questions raised in Asmad’s case.

  1. MOM should take a very serious view that physical assault on employees by employers and their henchmen can happen right at its doorsteps.
  2. According to what Asmad told The Online Citizen, it seems that he was a victim of an attempted kidnapping. This is a very serious offence under Singapore law and should be treated as such.
  3. MOM should have staff who are proficient in the native languages of foreign workers who approach them. If the frontline staff is not proficient in these, they should be told to refer such workers to officers who are in a better position to help, instead of dismissing workers’ complaints.

If Asmad is forcibly repatriated on a technicality – because he does not have a Special Pass – it would signal to employers that such ill-treatment and abuse of foreign workers are tolerated by the authorities. And employers will be emboldened to continue to do so.

Asmad wants to return to his family in Bangladesh.

It is not unreasonable for him to expect to be paid for the work he has done before doing so.

Asmad still has hearing problems in his left ear.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Electricity tariffs to be raised 6.1 percent from 1 April

SP Group has announced that electricity tariffs will be raised to an…

建议搭电梯疑惹怒失智老雇主 女佣被推倒敲伤后脑

疑不满女佣建议搭乘升降机,老雇主推女佣导致她失去重心跌倒,后脑勺敲到扶梯把手。 根据《新明日报》报导,事件发生在上周五(7日)下午二时左右,地点是在金文泰地铁站的电动扶梯前。伤者是一名41岁印尼籍女佣迪雅,事发时和67岁雇主陈亚达,前往拜访住在金文泰一带的女儿住处。 根据网民上载的照片,显示身穿红色上月和黑色短裤的女佣,倒在扶梯旁,地上散落了一些塑料袋。身旁有两名公共交通保安指挥处(Transcom)的人员,正视察女佣情况。 记者辗转找到涉事女佣,她受访时表示,她建议搭乘升降机,但雇主拒绝,希望搭电动手扶梯出站。 两人为此起口角,老雇主一气之下推了女佣一把,结果女佣失衡跌倒,后脑勺还撞到扶手。 两人纠纷也惊动附近执勤的公交保安人员,也有路人见状后马上呼叫救护车。 民防部队则证实有人被送往国大医院,警方接获报案,有关67岁男子接受警方调查。 女佣表示不想待下去 至于女佣跌倒导致后脑及胸前受伤,在医院观察一晚后回家,“经过此事,我不想在这里待下去了。” 男雇主患失智症,太太称原以为女佣经验照顾病人才请她,如今去留随她。 《新明日报》记者今早联系上陈杨达的太太,得知他大约5年前患上失智症,由于她仍需工作,因此需要请女佣照顾他。 “迪雅开工一个月左右,我们原以为她会说华语,又有经验,才雇佣她。如今她去意已决,我们也不会勉强挽留。”…

Let's donate to taxi hijack victim's family

  In their Facebook post, Changi Airport has indicated how members of…


本文译自鄞义林脸书贴文 在国大偷拍事件中,新加坡警方如是捍卫有关涉事者:“可能被判监禁的起诉,等同于毁掉他的人生。” 那么当李总理起诉我时,政府何曾想过,会不会“毁掉我的人生”? 当我工作的医院迫于政治压力解雇我时,又有没有为我想过,何会不会“毁掉我的人生?” 当本地时评人梁实轩只因为转发一则文章,被总理告诽谤,有没有想过会“毁掉他的人生”? 当本地人权工作者范国翰,被控违反《公共秩序法》,面临牢狱之灾,政府何曾想过会“毁掉他的人生”? 当本地艺术家施兰(Seelan Palay)因被控参与无证游行,违反《公共秩序法》而面临牢狱之灾,政府何曾想过会“毁掉他的人生”? 当人权律师张素兰与社会工作者钟金全(Vincent Cheng),因被控參與“馬克思主義陰謀”而被政治拘留,政府何曾想过会“毁掉他们的人生”? 当民主党秘书长徐顺全当年被起诉和监禁时,政府何曾想过会“毁掉他们的人生”? 我能够提的例子不胜枚举。…