Andrew Loh

Following the fire which broke out at a restaurant at Joo Chiat Place last Thursday, several residents from the area have written to their Member of Parliament, Mr Chan Soo Sen, to raise certain concerns.

Besides the issues of the accessibility of escape routes, the presence of suspected vice activities, and the cleanliness of the estate, the residents were “shocked” by the sheer number of people which had spilled out from the upper floors of the building which housed the restaurant, when the fire started at about 10.30pm.

Mr Tan, who witnessed the blaze, estimates that there must have been more than 100 people lining the road that night, some of whom he saw escaping from the upper floors of the building.

“The occupants were climbing out of the second floor window,” Mr Tan tells The Online Citizen (TOC) “and a ladder was used to get to safety on the street. What really caught our attention was the number of people who scampered out from that second floor unit – there must have been about 20 people! Most of them appeared to be foreigners, and quite a few even escaped with their suitcases in tow.”

Fortunately, no one was injured in the blaze, which was caused by an explosion of gas cylinders. According to news reports, the fire was put out in less than half an hour.

“We had always suspected that the [units] were overcrowded,” Mr Tan says, “with landlords tenanting rooms to a large number of foreign workers, ranging from labourers to bar hostesses working in pubs in Joo Chiat Road.”

TOC paid a visit to the restaurant on Saturday afternoon and found that it was closed. Plastic chairs, burnt and half-melted by the fire, were strewn outside the restaurant. The lone staircase, which was the only escape route for occupants in the upper units, was rendered inaccessible as the fire raged through it, evidenced by the blackened walls and charred railings. The passageway to the upper units was dark, even in the afternoon.

The second floor unit was apparently partitioned into at least four rooms – with even the empty space underneath the staircase  converted into one of these rooms. It is however unclear how many occupants were in each of them or if they were all foreign workers.

Mr Tan gives us some insights. “Telltale signs include the large number of double-decker beds and partitions that can be seen through these units’ windows,” he explains “and the unusually large amount of laundry on their balconies.”

“This had always been a concern to us and our families,” he added.

Indeed, in TOC’s coverage of issues relating to foreign workers last year, we had come across similar situations. We visited makeshift dormitories in Geylang, Little India and Chinatown which housed foreign workers from China, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Workers were packed into rooms in shophouses and apartments. Some had as many as 40 occupants sleeping on concrete floors with just one route of escape in case of emergencies. TOC reported cases where workers were placed in cargo containers and in run-down factories converted into dormitories, all in sub-human conditions unfit for occupation.

In others, workers were subjected to squalid conditions, as in this case of some Chinese workers living in the basement of a condominium being built, “Is Singapore really slum-free?

Thus when the Prime Minister announced in August that Singapore would have 80,000 more foreign workers this year, in addition to the more than 1 million presently, the first question which came to mind was: where would these 80,000 workers be housed?

In 2008, Minister for National Development Mr Mah Bow Tan said that “[the measures to house the workers] include making it easier for them to be housed where they work, letting them rent residential premises, allowing industrial premises to be converted into dorms and providing permanent dorms.”

“As far as possible, worker dormitories are located further away from residential areas,” Mr Mah said.

Apparently, this means as “further away” as the Choa Chu Kang cemetery  (See TOC’s report here: Social isolation – left among the dead), and the use of dilapidated factories which we brought to the public’s attention in 2009. (See “179 foreign workers abandoned by employer”)

In 2008, the Business Times reported that “[the government] has released 11 sites for purpose-built dormitories since February last year and is studying others for temporary quarters.” The dormitories are expected to be ready by 2011 and will have 65,000 beds.

Also in 2008, Mr Mah disclosed that “[an] estimated 80,000 to 100,000 are housed in illegal accommodations or living in conditions that are ‘not ideal’.  This was proved by some of the stories and reports we did in 2009 and 2010.

The question thus remains: Even if the 11 new dormitories are ready, will they be enough? Is Singapore providing adequate housing for these workers, given their large numbers, which is more than a million now?

The answer comes from Mr Mah himself. “[Even] if all these sites are converted into housing for workers, it will still not totally meet the demand,” he said, referring to the 10 temporary sites the government was looking at in 2008.

What may worry Singaporeans is that the government, while opening the door to the influx, is itself unprepared or is unable to anticipate the potential problems which come with it. Indeed, Mr Mah admitted as much. “’Yes, we do some planning but the build-up of the spaces requires quite a lot of lead time so we could not anticipate that…To call it poor planning, to call it one of the problems of success because we were so successful, we did not anticipate this kind of issue.”

If 80,000 to 100,000 were being housed illegally in 2008, and 80,000 more workers are coming into Singapore this year, where are they all going to be put up?

It seems that migrant workers will continue to be housed in atrocious conditions, despite media publicity highlighting the issue, until the 11 dormitories are completed.

Mr Jolovan Wham, Executive Director for HOME, an NGO which works with migrant workers, says: “Decent accommodation for foreign workers seems to be in short supply. We have been to poorly ventilated living quarters with triple-decker beds and the workers are packed like sardines into a tight space.” Triple-decker beds are illegal under the Ministry of Manpower’s rules.

Coincidentally, just a day after the fire at Joo Chiat on Thursday, the United Nations issued a statement on the human rights of migrant workers around the world. In it, the UN said: “Today, most of the 200 million international migrants are not enjoying their right to adequate housing.” It also said “[states] had no justification for not protecting the vulnerable groups.” (Read the UN statement here.)

In their letter to Mr Chan, the residents of Joo Chiat Place urged the authorities “to do the necessary to investigate and tackle the overcrowding issue, improve hygiene standards in the public space, clamp down vice activities, and ensure that there are no fire hazards in this stretch of Joo Chiat Place.”

Now, with the fire at Joo Chiat Place clearly demonstrating the danger of such inadequate housing, the Singapore authorities should explain to Singaporeans how our huge population of foreign workers is to be properly taken care of, before lives are unnecessarily lost.

Read an eyewitness account of the Joo Chiat fire here.

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

忆述大学时期表达诉求经历 前官委议员戴尚志劝青年“当负责任的异议者”

上月中旬,因耶鲁—国大学院临时取消一门名为《新加坡的异议与抵抗》的课程,引起本地学术界乃至社会群众热议。此前教育部长王乙康在国会称,教育部不能容许学府展开“有议程的活动”。 他引述亚菲言在本月5日(周六)的贴文,指后者提到复兴“新加坡学生运动”,特别是在“政治自觉化”等领域。 “负责有关课程的个人可以保有对新加坡的看法,甚至公开在社交媒体,但我们是否应让这种政治异议存在于我们的教育中?” 不过,巡回大使许通美教授非议王乙康的说法,认为后者不应妖魔化亚菲言,并指他是新加坡的“友爱批评者”。 对于异议课程被腰斩风波,前官委议员、法律学者戴尚志博士亦在日前于脸书分享其个人观点。 目前仍在新加坡智囊机构国际事务研究所担任主席的戴尚志,认为近期的论述主要分为三点: 有关教授和教育争议性课题的范畴 有关写作人和批判类文艺的自由 青年人与异议 从1984年反对政府优生政策谈起 戴尚志回溯35年前(1984年),新加坡政府推出争议性的“优生”政策“毕业妈妈政策”(Graduate Mother…

【冠状病毒19】自明日起,飞往中国的乘客须接受冠病检测

卫生部、人力部、贸工部、交通部和新加坡民航局发表联合文告,自明日(28日)起到下周一(31日),将特别为搭乘飞机前往中国的乘客安排冠状病毒19检测。 据文告指出,中心的开放时间为早上9点至中午12点,以及下午1点到4点,直至周日(30日)。乘客可在出发前,到裕廊东21街450号的区域检测中心接受检测。 检测结束后,乘客将会在48小时内获得检测结果,每次检测收费为168元。 中国驻新加坡大使馆近日增加新规定,要求所有从本地出发到中国的乘客,必须在出境前的五天内,接受病毒核算检测。 而为了配合大使馆的规定,当局也已要求航空公司向乘客传达相关信息,自25日以来,已有730名乘客配合检测。 若有在9月1日起,欲搭乘航班飞往中国的乘客,可向贸工部、人力部、教育部和卫生部寻求援助。 当局呼吁乘客在飞机起飞前,安排足够时间接受检测。 日前,从新加坡去往中国天津的酷航一趟航班,13名乘客被检测出感染冠状病毒19。当时他们均无症状,在做核酸检测时被确诊,随后被送往当地医院。

八名巴士司机不满裁决 申请对工业仲裁庭提司法复核

去年9月,五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运(SBS Transit),指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。 新捷运把诉讼移交工业仲裁庭(IAC)审理。该庭法官陈成安在去年11月13日则裁决,新捷运未抵触雇佣法。 本月17日,律师拉维(M Ravi)则代表八名巴士司机,向高庭提出司法复核,以撤销工业仲裁庭的裁决。 这八名巴士司机认为,工业仲裁庭的裁决“不合理”,仅基于新捷运提供的雇员合约和值日表样本,就作出单方面的决定。 “这显然是不合理的,并没有把那些原告司机们的合约和值日表纳入考量。” 这些司机也认为,在劳资关系法(Industrial Relations Act)下,工业仲裁庭实则已超出管辖权限。 至于新捷运企业联络高级副总裁陈爱玲则指上述八名司机的指控毫无根据,也将针对有关司法复核申请坚决捍卫该公司立场。 据了解,上诉诉讼的审前会议定在下月4日下午2时30分进行。

总理李显龙发文纪念我国首届民选政府,称经历“动荡历程”

1959年6月5日,人民行动党以51席位中获得43席位的压倒性胜利,宣誓就职,成立自治邦政府。李显龙总理于昨日(6日),在脸书上发表贴文纪念历史性的一刻。 李显龙文中回忆当时人民行动党正经历一场“动荡的历程”。身为人民行动党的领导者,已故建国总理李光耀正与共产党与其支持者们 “生死大战”,同时经历与马来西亚的两年“硬仗”,冒着被缉捕或更糟糕的危险,只为了能让新加坡人民的多元社会能够保留。 “1959年6月5日的内阁成员成立是造就了1965年8月9日以及记下来54年的日子。我们对于建立这些贡献的人表示深切的感谢。如果当时建国一代的人民不是与人民行动党站在同一条线上,团结起来,东姑阿都拉曼(Tunku Abdul Rahman)也不会同意让新加坡离开马来西亚,成为具有独立主权的国家。”李显龙写道。 当时的内阁人员包括已故总理李光耀、已故副总理杜进才、前国家发展部长王永元、已故前财政部长吴庆瑞、已故前内政部长王邦文、已故前卫生部长阿末依布拉欣、已故前教育部长杨玉麟、已故前外交部长拉惹勒南(时任文化部长)、以及已故律政兼劳工部长贝恩。 李显龙在文中也上载了现任内阁成员的合照,合照内包括文化、社区及青年部长傅海燕、通讯及新闻部长易华仁、外交部兼国防部高级政务部长孟理齐、教育部长王育康等人。 最后,李显龙呼吁“我告诉我的同事,这场仗将继续。我们仍要为创造更好的新加坡继续努力,我们誓言将新加坡成为更团结,无论种族、语言、宗教都能更和平相处。 根据《8视界》报道,李光耀上任前,要求释放林清祥、方水双等八名因被指煽动暴动而在1956年入狱的政治拘留者。 南洋理工大学人文学院助理教授魏文擎说:“人民行动党在参加1959年大选前,曾承诺会争取释放这些政治拘留者。因此在赢得大选后,他们必须履行这项承诺,并在6月2日才获得新加坡总督首肯。” 历史学家也指出,我国从殖民统治时期到实现独立的权力过渡相当平稳、和平,使我国在1960年代推进经济发展及现代化时能够飞速增长。