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.

Opinion:

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.

——

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Netizens slam govt lack of transparency in TraceTogether data use; highlight potential pitfalls

TraceTogether data would be used by the police in cases involving “very…

ERP rate increase for 3 gantries along AYE

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will be revising the Electronic Road Pricing…

毕丹星欣见开明雇主 赞同提升低薪工友薪资

本月初,工人党盛港集选区议员林志蔚,在国会提出最低薪资议题,与行动党成员交锋,这也激起国内比较最低薪金制和目前渐进式薪金制(PWM)的讨论,特别是哪个更能确保工友能维持生计?又能让企业持稳经营? 工人党党魁、国会反对党领袖毕丹星,也分享一篇《商业时报》的专题,这篇专题采访多位雇主,探讨老板们对于改善雇员福利的观点。特别是若企业成本上升,业者会否支持提升低薪工友薪资的举措? 令毕丹星感欣慰的是,实则好些雇主的想法都挺开明的!他们都会意识到,若忽略低薪工友的福利和处境,新加坡社会和民众的向心力都可能被动摇,“正是这类的雇主应予以表扬和鼓励,给予支持。” 事实上,最低薪金制和渐进式薪金制的论辩已持续许久,包括过去巡回大使许通美教授也和淡马锡控股主席林文兴陷入论战,前者甚至反驳最低薪金制将降低竞争力的说法,乃是“假论述”。 反对最低薪金制的人士,往往会说让低薪国人赚取更高薪资,反而会造成反效果,例如反而导致低薪国人失业。 若阅读《商时》的这篇采访,例如劳埃德银行集团亚洲(Llyod’s Asia)总裁帕沃斯称,确保雇员获得足够薪资,足以应对基本生计很重要,也提及该银行在英国本土参与的计划– 生活薪资基金,认可多达6千家支付员工薪资,比政府最低薪金更高的企业。 Terrific Mentor国际公司的创办人 John Bittleston,也认为提升低薪工友薪资,乃是最简单快捷的方法,来提升中产阶级的规模,这是社会经济发展乐见的,特别是在冠病疫情时期。该公司也提升了其工友的薪资。…