By: Kumaran Pillai, Terry Xu & Leo Khaw

Chen (not her real name) paid S$3600 of her savings to an agent in promise of more money, better life and to escape from the communist regime of China. But now, she has found herself only the short end of the stick. She works for a meagre S$500 a month as a factory hand in Panasonic Singapore which is located in suburban Bedok. There seems to be an awful regret that she has spent her money on a lousy deal. She has learnt the hard way that her life isn’t any better in democratic Singapore either.

Similar to those in the bottom 20% of our general population here, her life in Singapore is down to mere subsistence levels. Her income of S$500 is insufficient to meet her monthly expenditure. She has worked out a frugal budget though, of $300 for food, $250 for rent and S$60 for transportation, which is $110 more than her wage.  To supplement her income, her employer has “generously” given out, in the past, additional allowance of S$150 for housing and S$30 for transportation. With a stipend of S$680, her head is just barely above water.

She works hard for the money

Chen has a three year old child and her two elderly parents to support back at home. The $60 surplus is inadequate to meet her total financial needs. She needs to work overtime.

And so, she works up to 100 hours in overtime in order to make about S$1200 a month. This is on top of the 44 hour work week, and she can end up working as many as 72 hours in a typical workweek. There are times when she does double shifts of up to sixteen hours at a stretch to meet the production targets set by the company. Nowadays, this happens at least four times a month.

The Ministry of Manpower guidelines for overtime states, “An employee can be required to work up to 12 hours a day if the employee gives his consent in writing” (here). Chen says that the workers did not give their consent in writing. The employment contract is in English, but according to Chen, no translation was made available for the Mandarin speaking workers.

Chen however, is not overly concerned about the long working hours, she is concerned that the 72 hour limit is too low and that 100 hours of overtime hours are insufficient for her to earn the extras. She is willing to work all her waking hours to make as much as she can. 

She is hopeful that hard work and determination can see her through all the hardships. She is hopeful that someday she’ll be able to break out of her poverty cycle. But for now, hope is all she has got.

Chen’s passage to Singapore

Her job agent in Hubei, China made her many promises. He told her that her she could save as much as $1200 a month and that she could become rich in no time if she were to do overtime in Singapore. So, she was asked to buy her own airline ticket and asked to pay S$3600 as agency fees before her passage to Singapore.

Chen was given a contract in Mandarin which said that she was not forced or coerced into signing it and she was going to Singapore on her own free will. She was not aware of her actual employment terms until she started work in Singapore. In fact, her current employment contract with Panasonic is in English and the company has yet to give her a Chinese translation.

When asked if she would consider coming here again, she hesitantly said in Mandarin, “I have to work close to half a year just to earn back the agent fees, of course I would think twice."

Panasonic Singapore Vs Huawel China

There were 14 others we spoke to, who had similar stories to tell. One university graduate lamented about how he was short-changed. One said that China was better, and another said that things were too expensive here. But he also said the people here were cultured and polite.

The university graduate said that Huawei China paid about S$700 – S$800 as basic pay and he could easily make up to $2000 per month doing a similar job in China. He came here thinking that he could land a white collar job and was hoping to make about $3000 a month.

Union warns employees not to speak up

The workers were warned by the Union not to speak-up, negotiate or “create trouble” for the management. They were also told that Singapore government had very strict laws and “action” would be taken against those who spoke up.

Some employees received a pay rise of S$1.00 when they became too “vocal.” Another worker received a more “generous” raise of S$7.00 after working eighteen months here. The workers feel, perhaps justifiably, that the company was merely mocking their requests for better pay.

Assembly work at Panasonic Singapore

We learnt from the workers that Panasonic Singapore does assembly of refrigerators and air-cons which are exported out of Singapore.

They speculated that Panasonic continued operating in Singapore despite the costs, because of labour laws that permitted exploitation of low wage earners and a favourable tax regime.

Is it beneath Singaporeans to work in factories?

Listening to the plight of these workers, it has become apparent to us that these low wage workers are sometimes preferred, because of the lack of support and backing from unions and the industry bodies in Singapore for such workers. A Singaporean worker, on the other hand would probably have better access, though limited and perfunctory, to unions in Singapore. 

An MP has said that most Singaporeans do not take these jobs because we Singaporeans are concerned about our dignity and often do not take up menial jobs as we do not want to lose face. Having seen the ruthless exploitation and the wages that Panasonic offers, it makes us wonder if the MP has lost touch with reality and if he seriously wants Singaporeans to work under these conditions.

The way forward

In another TOC article written by Jolovan Wham, “Exploitation of Migrant Workers = Exploitation of Low Wage Local Workers,” he has clearly shown how such exploitation can lead to depressed wage conditions in Singapore.

These foreign workers are taking a big risk by standing up and speaking up against their employer and our system.

Therein lies a lesson for Singaporeans – there are things that we can learn from them – that we will only be able to find solutions to our social ills by surfacing them in the right forums, by standing up against incompetency in whatever form it may be, and by being the agent of change.

 

 

 

You May Also Like

淡马锡称冻结加薪、高层可选择减薪助抗疫

淡马锡控股(Temasek Holdings)的员工将冻结加薪,而高级管理层可选择削减基本工资,将其捐给慈善,以协助对抗武汉冠状病毒。 淡马锡昨日(24日)宣布,随着武汉冠状病毒在我国的确诊病例增至90起,四月起旗下全体员工,包括升级者的加薪将会被冻结。 而高级管理层包括执行总经理以上则可自发性削减基本工资,最高可达5巴仙,最长为期一年。与此同时,高层今年度的年度花红也将被削减。 “在此期间,这笔款项将捐献给淡马锡关爱意愿团(T-Touch),高层自愿减薪的金额,集团也会以一对一的方式,捐给关爱意愿团。” 该笔捐款也将资助社区的各项活动,淡马锡关爱意愿团正在进行的一项计划是为前线工作者提供洗手液,协助他们抵抗病毒。 《海峡时报》报道,据淡马锡的回应,减薪并非是出自于对投资业绩的反应,而是在此艰难时刻,淡马锡与社会并肩度过难关的举动。同时,此举也为了因应疫情来袭时所造成的损失,采取更审慎及克制的态度。

国家剧场尖棱代表国旗五星? 《海峡时报》诠释遭建筑师打脸

上周,本地英文媒体《海峡时报》在脸书上载一则短片,纪念国家剧场在1963年8月8日开幕。在文字说明中,该报称该剧场标志性的五个擎天尖棱结构,代表着新加坡国旗上的五星。 然而,有关解说随即遭到新加坡科技设计大学客座助理教授赖启健反驳,指出这是很主观的诠释。 有网民就提出,有关代表国旗五星说,也被记载在国家图书馆局官方网站,此外还有剧场前的喷泉,则代表国旗上的新月。 对此,赖启健说明,两种说法都有谬误,是很主观的诠释,但是久而久之所有人都信以为真了。“不管是图书馆局还是国家文物局都错了,现在轮到《海峡时报》。” 在过去受国家博物馆之邀,讲解国内四大代表性建筑的讲座,赖启健曾指出,由本地大师王匡国操刀,国家剧场有了不起的建筑设计,其中五个擎天尖棱,它们连同舞台和边墙,支撑起剧场的横梁。(见以下短片) 赖启健也引用王匡国的著作《意外国家的生活追忆》,指出五大尖棱的建设从未用以代表国旗上的五星,至于喷泉也不属国家剧场的部分,而是后期由副总理杜进才博士推广美化计划,才在较后完成的。(见文章开端的照片,显示剧场在喷泉落成前后的景观。) 媒体仰赖官方机构,例如国家图书馆局提供的资料。然而即便掌控国家重要文史资料的机构,也会收藏与事实不符的信息。 更何况,国家剧场在我国历史上是富有代表性的建筑,其设计师对建筑的功能理应做了充足的描述,但是如果国家文史机构记载与史实不符的资讯,引起民众对历史认知出现谬误,误导历史观的情况是令人不安的。

Netizens touched by Minister Lawrence Wong’s emotional tribute to frontline workers; some call it an act to win votes

National Development Minister Lawrence Wong broke down in tears midway through his…

DPM Heng: Gov’t to introduce one-off additional support for newborns

Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat announced in Parliament today (5 October)…