workers-kneel-singapore

By Jolovan Wham (HOME)

Holding placards and kneeling in the middle of a road outside the Ministry of Manpower building, two migrant Chinese workers were reportedly arrested for protesting over a dispute involving their recruitment agency. In response to queries from the media, a Ministry of Manpower spokesperson said that the couple had approached them for help in obtaining a refund of fees which was allegedly paid to the agency in China.

The couple wanted the employment agency in Singapore to refund the fees they had paid, but according to the MOM spokesperson, who was quoted by The Straits Times, its officers had explained our laws and regulations to the couple, which they had refused to accept.

In HOME’s experience, most workers often seek refunds of fees when their employment in Singapore has been prematurely terminated and they have not earned enough to recover the cost of their recruitment fees. It is likely that the couple had paid between RMB 25,000 to 40,000 (approximately $5000 to $8000) to the overseas recruiter to find a job here. When things go wrong, the recruiters are often unwilling to refund, or will only refund a fraction of what was paid.

Even though the Straits Times report did not elaborate on the laws and regulations which was explained to the couple by the Ministry of Manpower, it is very likely that they were told it is not possible to hold the local agent accountable for fees which have been paid to an overseas agent as it was outside of Singapore’s jurisdiction.

This is what MOM often tells workers and in statements it makes to the public. While this is true, what is not often said is that large amounts of these fees are usually remitted to the agencies in Singapore as a management fee. A portion of these fees above the legal limit chargeable by agents are pocketed by them or transferred to employers as kickbacks. This was probably why the couple went to the MOM for assistance as they may have believed that such transactions fall within Singapore’s jurisdiction.

However, in the absence of documentary evidence and receipts, it is often difficult for workers to prove that they had been overcharged. Some employment agencies issue receipts which show they have charged workers within the legal limit when they have not. These agencies will arrange for the recruiter in China to remit the money to them via a third party, making it difficult for workers to prove that they have overcharged the workers, or that their employers had benefited from these transactions through kickbacks.

HOME has encountered many cases where workers have been turned away by MOM because they do not have any evidence to show that they have been overcharged by local recruiters. Every year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are transferred through banks and remittance companies to finance this illegal trade. It is not possible for workers to prove that they have paid excessive fees and kickbacks as it is akin to asking a person who receives a bribe to issue a receipt.

If the government wants to tackle this problem effectively, it has to exercise greater oversight on these transactions and expend resources to gather evidence through intelligence. It is unclear if such measures have been taken but given the high incidence of kickbacks and illegal recruitment fees workers typically pay, it is unlikely that much attention is paid to this issue.

In an attempt to inject more transparency to the system, the Ministry of Manpower made it compulsory for agencies to declare how much they charge workers in an In Principle Approval letter (IPA) that is issued to each worker before they arrive. The legal limit is two months of a worker’s salary, but many agencies game the system by under-declaring what they have charged.

Even if workers are able to prove that they had been cheated, MOM is not legally mandated to assist them to recover their fees. In a case which was brought to the attention of the media, factory workers from a Panasonic plant in Singapore managed to successfully record a confession from their agent that they had been overcharged. But the Ministry of Manpower did not assist them to recover the excess amounts that were paid, nor did they take any action against the agent until their plight was publicised in a petition via HOME.

In the next few days, the workers will be charged in court and probably convicted for obstructing traffic, illegal assembly or causing public nuisance, while the real offenders, the recruiters who have cheated them, get away scot free.

This article was first published at HOME’s website

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

反对声浪下 马政府不签署《消除一切形式种族歧视公约》

相信是在部分穆斯林群体的反对声浪下,马来西亚政府决定不签署《消除一切形式种族歧视公约》(ICERD)。 马国首相办公室发文告证实此事,同时表明会“继续捍卫联邦宪法,即其中在建国由各族群一同订立的社会契约。” 马国政府原有意签署ICERD公约,但却遭来国内穆斯林社会、甚至部分政府代表表达反对立场,担忧签署了ICERD,联邦宪法中第153条文,有关马来人与土著的特权、伊斯兰的神圣性将受侵蚀。 为了反对政府签署上述公约,马国两大最大马来族群政党,巫统和伊斯兰党(PAS),恫言在下月举办反ICERD大集会。 伊党主席哈迪阿旺甚至形容,ICERD公约其实是“共济会的阴谋”,企图破坏马国宗教和种族和谐。 哈迪阿旺指出,美国是最鼓吹ICERD的观念,但该国已经忘记了屠杀及压迫红印地安土著的歷史。 他认为,既然马国联邦宪法已明文规定,不得歧视非穆斯林,所以马国并不需要ICERD。 包括马国,全球十四国家未签署ICERD ICERD是在反犹太主义事件和反对南非种族隔离制度情况下诞生。 联合国于1960年12月,通过谴责违反联合国宪章和世界人权宣言的种族、宗教及民族仇恨的行迳,随后在1963年11月20日的联合国大会接纳ICERD的草案。 ICERD的核心条款为第一条款,有关条款主要是种族歧视的定义为“基于种族、肤色、世系或民族或人种的任何区别、排斥、限制或优惠,其目的或效果为取消或损害政治、经济、社会、文化或公共生活任何在承认、享受或行使其他方面人权及基本自由的平等地位。 目前,全球有175国已签署上述联合国公约,马来西亚是世界上15个未签署ICERD的国家之一,与朝鲜、缅甸及汶莱齐名。…

本地专才失业四月觅职未果! 邱宝忠冀政府检视招聘政策

虽然我国在官方和MyCareersFuture.sg等招聘网站上,有成千上万份就职空缺,但是真实情况却不一定令人乐观,新加坡前进党成员邱宝忠,以一名顶尖大学毕业生James的真实经历为例,促请我国政府重检聘请外国专才政策。 邱宝忠今日(9月14日)在脸书帖文指出,我国拥有很多才华横溢的PMET人才,但如今他们也面对艰难处境,而James就是其中一个例子。 James曾在新加坡国立大学担任高级管理职务,并获得大学荣誉学位,属世界顶尖大学内表现优异的应届毕业生,也肯定有履行国民服役。 “据我估计,他的薪金应在8000元到1万元之间,但可悲的是,他甚至无法获得4至5千元的工作。” James是其中一名受到疫情影响而失业的人士之一。他在《今日报》分享了他的经历,并且持续面对挑战前进的动力。他于42岁重返校园。James在处理国际市场的公共教育领域工作了18年,曾为四名雇主打拼,以及在国内外从事营销行业。 他于2016年,因家庭关系返回狮城,并于今年初,加入了规模较小的国际公司分行,负责领导这里的团队发展亚洲业务。 然而不巧因疫情影响,雇主于今年5月底解雇了整个新加入的分行团队,包括他在内。 经过四个月觅职,他申请超过80个职位,甚至连以前工作岗位的最初级职务都申请了。然而招聘人员对他说,“世界已经改变了,James,你可以减薪一半吗?”。担任高位的招聘员指出,他比客户所期待的来的“有经验多了”。 他之后听取朋友和伙伴的建议,通过Linkedln和有可能聘请的雇主直接接触,或开拓自己的交流网,也有很多人表示乐意为他做介绍,但是四个月来都没有接获过任何面试交流。 这种种甚至让他觉得离开狮城10年是个错误,因为有不少雇主就因为这样而拉低他的评估。然而他最后决定继续留在本地觅职。 他卖掉自己的屋子,以便能够抚养年届八旬的老父母,并到商业学院报名,攻读工商管理硕士学位。 外国人才职务无人能替代?…

Letters from Vui Kong – The Twelfth Letter : On Facing Death

Yong Vui Kong is a death row inmate in Singapore. He was…