Connect with us

Current Affairs

No country for fishermen

Published

on

fishing_vessel_640w
By Joshua Chiang
The last time Eril Morales Andrade contacted his family was through SMS telling them that he was safely in Singapore – “To c Eril da, iya eon ako sa Singapore owas ka text ka ina naobosan ako it load “Donato” (English translation: “I am in Singapore. I will not be replying to your text messages anymore, because I have used up all my credit on my SIM card.”). It was sent shortly before he boarded the Taiwanese fishing vessel where he would be working presumably for the next 3 years.
Eril died 5 months later on 22 February 2011 on board the vessel when it was fishing in the Bay of Bengal. But it was only 6 weeks later on 16 April, when the ship docked in Singapore that his family was notified of his death. (His body was placed in the ship’s cold store to prevent decomposition.)
The post-mortem performed in Singapore concluded that the cause of death was “consistent with acute myocarditis” (inflammation of the heart due to infection). According to Eril’s elder brother Julius, a secondary post-mortem performed in the Philippines concluded that Eril had died of a heart attack, and that he had sustained several injuries before his death. He also said that the Philippine pathologist told him that the pancreas and one of Eril’s eyes were missing, without any written explanation.
[Editor’s note: the Philippine post-mortem report seen by TOC did not mention these matters.] Julius believes Eril had died of unnatural causes. “He was 32 years of age when he died. He did not smoke or drink and he did not have any ailment when he left here,” he tells TOC in an email interview. Julius also suspects that Eril had been subjected to physical abuse while on the ship.
When contacted by TOC, the Philippine Embassy in Singapore declined to comment on Eril’s case, as it is currently still working on the case with both the Singapore and Philippine authorities. However, the Embassy revealed that in 2009 and 2010, it had received over 70 complaints by Filipino fishermen about harsh working conditions onboard their vessels, and non-payment of salaries. As most of these Filipinos did not have work passes in Singapore, they have had difficulties filing cases here.
According to Shelley Thio, a volunteer with migrant workers’ rights NGO Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), the problems faced by these fishermen are exacerbated by the lack of legal protection for abuses committed against fishermen out at sea. Many countries are not legally obliged to help fishermen in trouble, and Singapore is no exception.
An article published on TOC last year documented how a fisherman onboard a fishing vessel docked in Singapore nearly couldn’t escape his harsh work conditions because of bureaucratic red-tape caused by an absence of legislation. But in Eril’s case, the Singapore connection may well have gone much deeper.
The Singapore connection
According to Julius, Eril first learnt about an opening for a job as a fisherman in Singapore in May last year when his cousin told him that a certain Mrs. Celia Flores-Robelo was recruiting workers to work abroad. When they eventually met up, Flores-Robelo apparently promised Eril a monthly salary of US$500 (S$652) plus US$50 (S$65) allowance if he would take up the offer. There was no mention of the work conditions or working hours. Eril eventually took up the offer and his family claimed they paid Flores-Robelo 10,000 pesos (S$297) for the ‘processing.
The Taiwanese vessel “Hung Yu #212”.
Tuna-fishing-vessels-carrying-the-Taiwanese-flagIn late August 2010, Eril went to Manila (he was living in the province of Aklan at that time) to finish his application, and was asked to pay a further 15,000 pesos (S$446), which he did. He was then offered an employment contract by a Singapore firm called Step Up Marine Enterprise, to work onboard the Taiwanese vessel “Hung Yu #212”.
After Eril died, representatives from Step Up Marine got in touch with his family to offer ‘limited compensation’. The company offered 100,000 pesos (S$2,942), but Eril’s family asked for 1,000,000 pesos (S$29,000). After 6 months of negotiations, the talks fell through. In November 2011, Julius lodged a formal complaint to Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower against Step Up Marine.
In the letter, Julius wrote: “We believe that hundreds of Filipinos, most of them unqualified as seamen, have been illegally recruited from all over the country by Step Up Marine Enterprise and their agents located in Manila and the provinces.”
An illegal business?
The Philippine Embassy in Singapore believes that the Filipinos, who had sought help from it, had been illegally recruited in the Philippines and trafficked into Singapore. They would arrive in Singapore as tourists, and upon arrival, Singaporean agents would facilitate their employment as fishermen. The Embassy named Step Up Marine Enterprise, the Singapore firm that had acted on Eril’s employment, as one such agent.
The Embassy also noted that many of these Filipinos were former farmers without any seamanship training or experience. The fishermen would be subjected to harsh and dangerous working conditions, and would be made to work up to 18 to 20 hours a day.
When in Singapore, the men would be made to sign onerous contracts with salaries or as low as US$200 per month. These contracts would also stipulate that the men would have to pay a certain amount if they tried to terminate the contracts and ask to return to the Philippines. The contracts would usually not be properly explained to the fishermen, as they would be immediately asked to board the fishing ships.
The Embassy has seen contracts signed only by the fishermen, without any signatures from the employers or agents, which raised questions about the validity of any employment relationship.
Shelley from TWC2 has been working on Eril’s case. She told TOC that Eril’s case was not the first time complaints have been lodged against Step Up Marine. Since May 2011, TWC2 has assisted with the repatriation of 5 fishermen recruited by Step Up Marine. Shelley said that the fishermen complained about unpaid wages and that Step Up Marine did not inform them of the long working hours and the dangerous working conditions, which exposed them to life-threatening situations at seas.
Shelley had met Step Up Marine’s director Victor Lim several times, but he insisted that he runs a legitimate manning agency sourcing for workers for customers. He has also threatened lawsuits against Shelley. (When TOC approached Mr. Lim for an interview, he declined, and similarly threatened to sue TOC for defamation if it published a story on this case.)
Nonetheless, Shelley says that Victor Lim had admitted to her that he had to recruit Filipino workers through illegal channels because his clients didn’t want to pay the fees to lawfully hire workers who are registered with The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. And yet, in spite of the numerous complaints lodged against Step Up Marine, one of which resulting in a raid by MOM on Step Up Marine’s premises in May this year (for an unrelated case), TWC2 believes that the company has not yet been charged with any offenses.
Who watches out for fishermen?
Shelley explains that part of the difficulty NGOs face in getting the authorities to act, arises from a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate complaints. In salary disputes for example, the manning agencies were often able to produce contracts signed by complainants – who often allege they were not allowed to first read the contents – to show that they had entered into the agreements willingly. But Shelley says that there are also legislative loopholes that leave fishermen unprotected.
MOM had advised the NGOs that the fishermen are not covered under Singapore laws as they are not holders of Singapore work passes, since they are performing work outside Singapore; the fishing vessels they worked on are usually not registered in Singapore and are usually foreign-owned; and finally, Singapore has yet to ratify the International Labor Organisation’s (ILO) Work in Fishing Convention. While Singapore has ratified the ILO’s Maritime Labor Convention (which obligates Singapore to apply provisions in the Convention for decent work for seafarers), this Convention does not apply to crew working on fishing vessels.
Presently, there is no system in place in Singapore for fishermen to address their grievances and seek assistance to settle their disputes with the ship owners and manning agents. This is in contrast to seafarers, who have a right to appeal to the Director of Shipping Division of the Maritime Port Authority (MPA) of Singapore. The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act covers the employment of seafarers only.
The only recourse is for the complainants to lodge a civil suit, but the legal fees and court charges involved make this an unlikely option for impoverished families such as Eril’s.
“We want justice for my brother, Eril,” Julius tells TOC.
But until the State ensures that manning agencies for fishermen are, at a minimum, abiding by the same set of rules and principles that apply to manning agencies for seafarers, ‘justice’ for fishermen like Eril will be hard to come by.


Update 22/09/2014

Victor Lim is now facing charges of trafficking and illegal recruitment in the Philippines.
The case went to trial last Monday at the Aklan Regional Trial Court. He faces up to 40 years in prison if convicted.
Victor Lim’s alleged recruiter, Filipina Celia Robelo, has also been charged. Robelo had allegedly promised them US$550 ($700) a month to work as fishermen.
Victor Lim  denies the allegations, saying he was only a middleman and that he was a victim of a conspiracy. He did not comment if he would be facing trial in Philippines.
There is no extradition treaty between Singapore and the Philippines.
The Manpower Ministry investigated the agency in 2011 but found that it handled only administrative work for overseas clients. Mr Kandhavel Periyasamy, director of MOM’s Joint Ops Directorate, also added: “We cannot take action based on bad HR practices.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Reforming Singapore’s defamation laws: Preventing legal weapons against free speech

Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong, linked to the financial stress from a defamation lawsuit, raises a critical issue: Singapore’s defamation laws need reform. These laws must not be weaponized to silence individuals.

Published

on

by Alexandar Chia

This week, we hear the tragic story of the suicide of Geno Ong, with Ong citing the financial stress from the defamation lawsuit against her by Raymond Ng and Iris Koh.

Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, this Koh/Ng vs Ong affair raises a wider question at play – the issue of Singapore’s defamation laws and how it needs to be tightened.

Why is this needed? This is because defamation suits cannot be weaponised the way they have been in Singapore law. It cannot be used to threaten people into “shutting up”.

Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution may permit laws to be passed to restrict free speech in the area of defamation, but it does not remove the fact that Article 14(1)(a) is still law, and it permits freedom of speech.

As such, although Article 14(2)(a) allows restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech with regard to the issue of defamation, it must not be to the extent where Article 14(1)(a)’s rights and liberties are not curtailed completely or heavily infringed on.

Sadly, that is the case with regard to precedence in defamation suits.

Let’s have a look at the defamation suit then-PM Goh Chok Tong filed against Dr Chee Soon Juan after GE 2001 for questions Dr Chee asked publicly about a $17 billion loan made to Suharto.

If we look at point 12 of the above link, in the “lawyer’s letter” sent to Dr Chee, Goh’s case of himself being defamed centred on lines Dr Chee used in his question, such as “you can run but you can’t hide”, and “did he not tell you about the $17 billion loan”?

In the West, such lines of questioning are easily understood at worse as hyperbolically figurative expressions with the gist of the meaning behind such questioning on why the loan to Suharto was made.

Unfortunately, Singapore’s defamation laws saw Dr Chee’s actions of imputing ill motives on Goh, when in the West, it is expected of incumbents to take the kind of questions Dr Chee asked, and such questions asked of incumbent office holders are not uncommon.

And the law permits pretty flimsy reasons such as “withdrawal of allegations” to be used as a deciding factor if a statement is defamatory or not – this is as per points 66-69 of the judgement.

This is not to imply or impute ill intent on Singapore courts. Rather, it shows how defamation laws in Singapore needs to be tightened, to ensure that a possible future scenario where it is weaponised as a “shut-up tool”, occurs.

These are how I suggest it is to be done –

  1. The law has to make mandatory, that for a case to go into a full lawsuit, there has to be a 3-round exchange of talking points and two attempts at legal mediation.
  2. Summary judgment should be banned from defamation suits, unless if one party fails to adduce evidence or a defence.
  3. A statement is to be proven false, hence, defamatory, if there is strictly material along with circumstantial evidence showing that the statement is false. Apologies and related should not be used as main determinants, given how many of these statements are made in the heat of the moment, from the natural feelings of threat and intimidation from a defamation suit.
  4. A question should only be considered defamatory if it has been repeated, after material facts of evidence are produced showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the message behind the question, is “not so”, and if there is a directly mentioned subject in the question. For example, if an Opposition MP, Mr A, was found to be poisoned with a banned substance, and I ask openly on how Mr A got access to that substance, given that its banned, I can’t be found to have “defamed the government” with the question as 1) the government was not mentioned directly and 2) if the government has not produced material evidence that they indeed had no role in the poisoning affair, if they were directly mentioned.
  5. Damages should be tiered, with these tiers coded into the Defamation Act – the highest quantum of damages (i.e. those of a six-figured nature) is only to be reserved if the subject of defamation lost any form of office, revenue or position, or directly quantifiable public standing, or was subjected to criminal action, because of the act of defamation. If none of such occur, the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff in a defamation can claim is a 4-figure amount capped at $2000. This will prevent rich and powerful figures from using defamation suits and 6-figure damages to intimidate their questioners and detractors.
  6. All defendants of defamation suit should be allowed full access to legal aid schemes.

Again, this piece does not suggest bad-faith malpractice by the courts in Singapore. Rather, it is to suggest how to tighten up defamation laws to avoid it being used as the silencing hatchet.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun

A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.

The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.

The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.

Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.

The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.

The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.

If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.

They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.

The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.

The investigation is ongoing.

Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.

Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.

The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.

Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.

However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.

The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.

Continue Reading

Trending