Workers Taken by Repatriation Companies

This news clip from Channel U news (11pm, 10 Dec 2008) features Mr. Chen Yu Guang and Mr. Xue Cheng Ming, construction workers hired by Xuyi Building Engineering who were taken from their dormitory on 2 Dec 2008 by repatriation companies hired by their employer. Both have salary arrears cases pending. Both Mr. Chen and Mr. Xue had their work permits canceled by their employer, who then hired the repatriation companies to hold them before calling the police. Chen and Xue were taken into police custody on 3 Dec 2008 and then sent to the Immigration Checkpoints Authority (ICA). They were finally released on 10 Dec 2008, the day they were interviewed. For a fuller story on this case, please read the Yawning Bread entry (www.yawningbread.org) further below titled, 'Muddy Singapore swallows China Workers'.

Here is a summary of the newsclip in Mandarin (from the Mediacorp website):

以下这则新闻打印自新动网
建筑客工讨薪水 公司取消工作准证
日期 ： 10 December 2008 2226 hrs
网址 ： http://www.xin.sg/article.php?article=26622

新传媒新闻报道，中国籍建筑客工投诉被拖欠三个月的薪水，但在同雇主交涉时，工作准证却被取消。他们声称雇主还找来保安公司，把其中两人送到警察局去，希望将他们遣送回国。

薛成明、刘小平和另外30多名建筑客工，原本在滨海综合娱乐城的工地工作。他们声称被雇主拖欠了三个月的薪水，因此向人力部投诉。在斡旋期间，二手承包商要求扣除多项费用，其中六人认为不合理，因此继续留在本地争取索回薪水。

建筑劳工刘小平说：“我白白了干了三个月，扣了只剩下500元，你说你能接受吗？他说你不来结账，我就要报警了，我说怎么报警，他说，我报你们在外面丢失。”

受影响的客工也指雇主取消了他们的工作准证。

建筑劳工薛成明说：“12月2日，公司派了私人保安，到我的宿舍里，强行把我捉去。我说人力部叫我12月4日到人力部谈判，你现在为什么要把我捉走？他说我的准证，在11月26日已经割掉了，现在有权利来捉你了。保安公司把我扣押了12 小时，他就不让我自由，不让我打手机，也不准你到外面去。”

薛成明说，保安公司分头把他和另一名建筑客工带到警局。移民与关卡局证实，警方在12月3日把两名中国籍客工送到移民与关卡局，他们在鉴定客工的居留资格之后，在星期三发出特别准证给他们。除了这两人，另外两名客工则在12月6日被雇主报警带走，经调查后隔天获释。这六名客工下午再次到人力部进行调解，其中有三人已经同雇主达成和解。

Follow-up: Muddy Singapore swallows China workers, part 2

6 Dec 2008: Mr. Xue Han Ming taken into police custody from the office premises of XuYi Building Engineering Co. in Joo Chiat Rd. The photo has been cropped because apparently photographs of police personnel are not allowed. Mr. Xue was called to the office by his company supervisor, who had been relentlessly ringing them to ask them to come into the office to settle their salary arrears dispute. While there, the company called the police. The account below from Yawning Bread tells a fuller story.



This is a follow-up of the article, Muddy Singapore swallows China workers, posted by Yawning Bread on 9 December 2008. The url is http://www.yawningbread.org/ - just click on the link titled 'Muddy Singapore swallows China workers, part 2 - two more workers had to spend a night in a police lock-up'.

I'm sure readers would be interested in an update of the China workers issue before I fly off.

Friday, 5 December: After the morning's interview with Yawning Bread, the men went off to the Ministry of Manpower again, to ask for another appointment date. They met with the same officer whom I called "Chen" in the earlier article, but whose name I have now established, is Mr A K Tan.

Tan gave them a new appointment date for Wednesday, 10 December. He issued a letter with four originals, one each for the four China workers who were still free. As you will recall from the earlier article, two others were already in detention at the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).

Each of the men had photocopies of the letter made. This letter should be useful in case the employer's security agents nab them and hand them over to the police.

Saturday, 6 December: Stephanie Chok, the tireless volunteer, received word that Xue Hanming and Yang Zhiqiang were being held at Xuyi, the employer's office. The employer wanted them to sign an agreement to be paid (a sum that the men did not agree with) and repatriated. The men refused and Xuyi was calling the police.

She and Russell Heng, treasurer of Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), rushed to Xuyi's Joo Chiat office. They arrived at about the same time as two police officers. Two other police officers were already in the office. Other China workers were in the corridor muttering their own unhappiness with the employer.

A woman named Elsie, representing the company, objected to the presence of third parties, so Stephanie and Heng had to wait outside. Soon after, Radha Basu of the Straits Times arrived, but she didn't get much co-operation from Elsie either.

Heng told the police that Xue and Yang had appointments at the Manpower ministry on 10 December, and so they are not illegal overstayers. They therefore shouldn't be taken into custody. Unfortunately, Xue only had a photocopy of his letter in his possession and the police felt that they had to take the both of them in pending sight of the original letter.

The two men were then handcuffed and led out. On the way out, Xue told Stephanie to retrieve the original letter from among his possessions at a Geylang hostel. This would prove a mistake, because the employer's representative also heard it.

For some reason, there was a little delay before Stephanie called another worker at the same hostel. It was too late! The worker there said that Xuyi supervisor Tang Xuan had just arrived to take Xue’s bag away.

(What is this? Do employers have the right to take personal property away just like that? Isn't that theft?)

When Stephanie got there, she saw a few bags strewn about, but clearly no letter. The other workers, even though they were witnesses, were however reluctant to provide their names. "We have to earn a living," they said.

Stephanie and Heng then proceeded to Bedok Police Station where Xue and Yang were being held. They couldn't get to see them, but managed to speak to Winson Ng, the investigating officer. They briefed Ng about the background to this matter, and Ng helpfully explained to them what his station would be doing.

He said they would be in touch with the Ministry of Manpower to establish the status of the men. He enquired if there were any Special Passes issued for them, but when told that a certain Nigel from Manpower had said the Special Passes had been issued to the employer (see previous article), he remarked that he found it strange too.

(Later, I will explain why I think no Special Passes were ever issued.)

Ng said that if the police manage to establish that the men were not illegal overstayers, they would release them to their employer. Heng told him that this would expose them to the risk of being detained by Xuyi's security agencies and the whole drama would repeat itself. Agreeing, Ng said sometimes the police may just release the men on their own recognition.

Sunday, 7 December: Russell Heng had a phone conversation with a Simon Ho of Bedok Police Station. When Ho understood that while Xue's original letter from the Manpower ministry could not be located, Liu Xiaoping had an identical original, Ho agreed that Liu's letter would satisfy him of the appointment at Manpower on 10 December.

Stephanie then went to get hold of Liu and his original letter, and brought both to Bedok Police Station.

By the time she got there, the police had decided to release Xue and Yang without even seeing the letter. This was because Ho had managed to contact someone at Manpower to verify the facts. Ho also explained -– for once, somebody does -– a little about the system.

Apparently, after an employer cancels a worker's Work Permit [1], the police recognise a grace period of one month, to allow the individual to sort out matters and leave in an orderly fashion. They won't arrest the individual for overstaying during that one month.

In Xue Hanming's case, his Work Permit was apparently cancelled by his employer on 7 November 2008 -– that's about as soon as Xue lodged his complaint with the Ministry of Manpower. So on that same day as they were speaking (7 December), his one month grace period had expired. However, since he had a letter from Manpower setting an appointment date of 10 December, this would suffice for now.

In Yang Zhiqiang's case, the employer cancelled his Work Permit on 10 November 2008. He would be considered an overstayer after 10 December.

Stephanie thought that Ho's manner was genial. Xue and Yang too said that the police were very civil throughout their stay in the lock-up. It was clean, they said, and they were fed, though they felt the portions were a bit small.

* * * * *

In the meantime, there has been no news whatsoever about Cheng Yuguang and Xue Chengming, the two workers seized earlier by the employer's security agents. The last anyone heard, they were being held at the ICA.

Have they been deported? No one seems to know.

The remaining two guys, Tian Suyun and Liu Xiaoping, have fled the company-supplied accommodation and are staying with friends. They remain in contact with TWC2 and Stephanie. Xue Hanming and Yang Zhiqiang are obviously not going to return to the company-supplied accommodation either.

The men have made it clear that they have no intention of overstaying; in fact they want to go home to China, but also want to be paid their just amounts before they are sent home.

In the remaining few days, they will obviously have to try harder through the Manpower ministry or other means, to get the matter resolved to their satisfaction. What happens next, we shall see.

* * * * *

The picture is a little clearer now, but so are the crevices through which workers can fall through.

We learn from this story that Work Permits can be cancelled at any time by the employer, and apparently nobody has any responsibility to inform the worker that his Work Permit has been cancelled, and his one-month grace period is ticking. One morning, you can transition into an illegal overstayer without even knowing it, and be liable for imprisonment and caning.

By the way, the men's passports are still with the employer; the practice is that employers keep all their workers' passports. It seems strange to me that Singapore allows this to happen. There must be some human right violated that a critical identity document should be taken out of a person's hands.

It is doubtful if there were ever any Special Passes issued for these workers. The information attributed to the "Nigel" from Manpower must be defective. In any case, as I understand it, a Special Pass is normally issued only to a foreign worker if he or she is needed to stay on in Singapore as a prosecution witness in a criminal case; for example, if a domestic worker needs to testify that she has been physically abused by her employer.

These men are not bringing forward a criminal case (but see my comments below). It would therefore seem odd that Special Passes appear to figure in the story.

The men were at a disadvantage because they were ignorant of how the system works, and they largely wasted their one-month grace period (which they probably didn't know about) hoping that the Manpower ministry would help them resolve their dispute with Xuyi.

The Manpower ministry probably felt it was not their job to pressure the employer to solve the matter within one month.

As for the employer, my guess is that they probably thought they could stonewall the workers' claims for one month and then rely on the police and ICA to arrest and deport the men after that. Under duress, the men would have to agree to whatever little the company was prepared to pay them.

The system is therefore loaded against the worker.

* * * * *

But why wasn't it made into a criminal case from the start? The men's complaints were threefold:

* Their salaries had not been paid for three months;
* The employer was making deductions the men did not agree to;
* The employer was not computing for overtime in the salary calculations, when they were working as many as 88 hours a week.

The second might be a civil dispute, but the first and third were violations of the Employment Act.

Sections 20 and 21 of the Act says:

20. –(1) An employer may fix periods, which for the purpose of this Act shall be called salary periods, in respect of which salary earned shall be payable.

(2) No salary period shall exceed one month.

(3) In the absence of a salary period so fixed the salary period shall be deemed to be one month.

21. –(1) Salary earned by an employee under a contract of service, other than additional payments for overtime work, shall be paid before the expiry of the 7th day after the last day of the salary period in respect of which the salary is payable.

(2) Additional payments for overtime work shall be paid not later than 14 days after the last day of the salary period during which the overtime work was performed.

As for overtime pay, Section 38 (subsection 4) says,

38. -(4) If an employee at the request of the employer works –

(b) more than 44 hours in one week.....

he shall be paid for such extra work at the rate of not less than one and a half times his hourly basic rate of pay ...

As mentioned in the earlier article, the men had also worked every day for months without a day off. This violates the Employment Act too.

36. –(1) Every employee shall be allowed in each week a rest day without pay of one whole day which shall be Sunday or such other day as may be determined from time to time by the employer.

(2) The employer may substitute any continuous period of 30 hours as a rest day for an employee engaged in shift work.

As for the deductions, this could conceivably be a criminal matter as well, because the Act says,

26. No deductions other than deductions authorised under the provisions of this Act shall be made by an employer from the salary of an employee

The Act lists what it considers authorised deductions, including accommodation, meals, absence from work, provident fund payments, etc. Since I do not know the nature of the deductions the employer is making, I can offer no view whether they are in violation of the law or not.

Still, it does seem strange, doesn't it, that the Manpower ministry is merely trying to mediate the matter, when there is a case to prosecute the employer under the Employment Act for delaying wages and not computing overtime pay. Why hasn't it done so?

If it had, the employer could not then rely on the stonewall strategy. It would have to settle fairly and promptly or face the law.

BOX STORY 1: Channel 8's Liang Kaixin and a camera crew were also at Bedok Police Station. They took some footage and did an interview or two.

However, Russell Heng learnt from them that they also needed to get the Manpower ministry's response to their queries before they could air, and as at the time of writing this piece, more than 48 hours later, it hasn't aired yet.

Frankly, this is another problem with our mainstream media's editorial policies -- policies no doubt laid down from on high.

What if the Manpower ministry doesn't respond? The story will be suspended indefinitely. Then, at some point, the men will be deported, and editors may decide, oh well, the story is moot.

If so, Singaporeans may never learn of the affair.

BOX STORY 2: In the earlier article, I mentioned that a New Paper reporter was also there at the Friday morning interview. As far as I can see, the story did not appear on Saturday, nor on Sunday. Why?

© Yawning Bread

MUDDY SINGAPORE SWALLOWS CHINA WORKERS

L-R:
Tian Su Yun
Yang Zhi Qiang
Xue Han Ming
Liu Xiao Ping

Not in the photo (detained at ICA):
Xue Cheng Ming
Chen Yu Guang

The following is a web entry from Yawning Bread, posted on 5 December 2008, about a group of construction workers from China who are working on the Marina Sands integrated resort project. Hired by a company called XuYi Building Engineering Co., these men, whittled down to a group of 4 (see picture above) from an original batch of 34, have been trying to claim their unpaid salary arrears and have met with one obstacle after another. For the full story, please log on to Yawning Bread's website at: http://www.yawningbread.org/ and click on the December entry titled 'Muddy Singapore Swallows China Workers'. The article is reproduced below, but without the accompany box stories and a few images. You can also read the comments left by other readers on Yawning Bread's website.

MUDDY SINGAPORE SWALLOWS CHINA WORKERS

Wanting to press for a resolution of his dispute with his employer, Xue Hanming, a construction worker originally from Jiangsu, China, called the Ministry of Manpower on 3 December 2008. "Ms Foo [Kim Hui] told me to go down to the ministry the next day," he told me.

On the 4th, he arrived and asked the reception clerk to inform Ms Foo of his presence. He was asked to sit in the waiting area.

After a long while with no sign of Foo, Xue began to wonder if something else was up. Fresh in his mind was the case of a fellow worker, Xue Chengming (no relation), who had been seized by security agents hired by their employer on 2 Dec. More on Xue Chengming's seizure below.

Fearing a similar fate, Xue decided to leave. Moments after stepping out, he saw his manager and a couple of security guards enter the Manpower ministry building. It was a near miss.

The coincidences scream at you. Who would have alerted the employer that Xue Hanming was in the ministry building? Why did Foo never come down to meet someone with whom she herself had asked to come to the ministry, giving the impression that she was prepared to discuss the matter with the complainant? Are government offices meant to be places for resolving problems in good faith and according to the law, or locations for entrapment?

But let's start from the beginning.

* * * *

The two Xue were members of a larger group of workers -– a figure of 32 was mentioned at some point in the interview -– who were in dispute with their employer, Xuyi Building Engineering Co, a "foreign company registered in Singapore" according to the records at the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). Its registration number is F 065765 K.

Xuyi is a subcontractor at both the Marina Bay and Sentosa casino projects. I am told that Xuyi is a subcontractor for multinational construction company Ssangyong at these sites.

This was not the first time that Xuyi faced unhappy workers. There was at least one earlier batch who had lodged complaints against the company -- a fact that the Ministry of Manpower acknowledged to Xue and his colleagues. More on that batch's story in the box at right.

Xue Hanming spoke on behalf of five other men... Two of them had been seized by the employer's security agents before the interview and handed over to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).

Of these six men, three had been brought to Singapore in late 2007, one in February 2008 and two, including Xue Hanming, in June 2008.

Before coming here, they had signed employment contracts with a labour agency in China -– whom they later discovered was set up by the spouse of the boss of Singapore Xuyi -– which contained a paragraph on expected remuneration. It is not an altogether clear clause, but it may be common in China. Essentially, it says that the monthly salary will be in the range of "S$1,250 to S$1,500 (subject to satisfactory diligence)". It also specified that if they worked every day of a month, they would get an extra S$1 per day, i.e. S$30 for a 30-day month.

By end October, Xue Hanming and others were seriously unhappy about not receiving their wages, formally lodging their complaints with their company's management. Xue himself, following the company's procedure, signed a form recording his grievance.

They even had difficulty at that stage. Xue wanted the complaint form to say that he wanted three months of salary arrears to be paid, but the supervisor or manager insisted on rewriting it to say "Salary too little, not in keeping with contract obligation". As you can imagine, the rewrite would conceal the fact that the company had broken Singapore law by not paying its workers on time; the rewrite cast5 it as a dispute about interpretation of contractual terms.

In response, the company produced a schedule listing what the men were owed. In Xue's case, the schedule showed that his gross salary in June and July was over S$1,400 monthly, but for August, September and October, his gross decreased to S$1,300 and S$1,200.

It was similar for the others in the batch.

Xue asked his management: "Is the gross salary for the last three months lowered because I filed a complaint and indicated I wanted to go back?"

He was not given much of an answer. "It's like that," was what the company representative told him.

Xue was prepared to accept the slightly reduced amounts, but then the company produced a list of deductions that whittled the gross salaries of August, September and October down to a nett S$1,400 or so. For all three months.

Others had it worse,

"In my case," said Liu Xiaoping, "my nett after deductions was just about S$500 for those three months!" As was the case for Chen Yuguang -– one of two guys currently in ICA detention.

Now feeling cheated and quite irate, they also chanced upon a story in the Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao which told of another company being found in the wrong for holding back salaries time-wise and through deductions. They further learnt that it was illegal for companies not to pay overtime for working hours in excess of 44 hours a week.

In their case, they had been working every day, seven days a week. They often worked more than 80 hours a week. This only fueled their anger.

Ministry of Manpower – first meeting

On 6 November 2008, they filed a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower, meeting the above-mentioned Ms Foo and an officer whose surname in hanyu pinyin was Chen.

Xue recounted that Chen waxed lyrical with three allegorical tales.

"His first story was from Lu Xun, about a patriot and revolutionary named Ah Q, who ended up being executed, because he was illiterate. He signed a confession without understanding it.

“I told him in response, ‘The era of Ah Q is over’.”Refusing to be compared to an illiterate, Xue pointed to the Zaobao article that had informed him of his rights. The article had said that it is illegal for an employer to make deductions from workers' pay. Even if an agreement had been signed, the agreement would not be valid, Xue summarised the news story.

Chen then spoke of the Yellow River, saying that at its source the water is clear, but in the lower reaches, it is yellow and muddy. "Frankly," noted Xue, "I don't understand what he was trying to say. Was he saying that Singapore is muddy?"

The Manpower official then launched into his third allegory. "Rub two stones and you get a spark," Xue recalled Chen saying. "But if you have an egg and a stone.... You workers are the eggs."

"He said this in front of more than 20 workers as well as company representative Tang Xuan," reported Xue. "And the meeting ended like that with no conclusion."

Along the way, the workers learnt that the same company had had a similar case just weeks before. Twelve workers, originally from Henan, had meetings with the Manpower ministry in October and were eventually sent home to China in early November. Workers in that batch were upset about the same things, and demanded to be released from their contracts and repatriated. To close that case, the company deducted S$100 for each month in the contract not worked. There were also deductions for rent and utilities.

The current batch said that if the company would use the same formula, they would accept the settlement. But this time, the company refused, while the ministry officials said, "We can't tell your employer what to pay you."

Ministry of Manpower – second and third meetings

The mediation session of 19 November was likewise fruitless. The employer stood firm, saying something to this effect: These projects (the casinos) are important projects, and if we let you quit whenever you want, we cannot complete them in time.

The third meeting was not held at the ministry, but at the worksite. Inside information told Yawning Bread that the ministry was seeing more and more workers showing up and making complaints, and they did not want the public to see how many unhappy workers were descending on their premises.

Held on 26 November, the officer Chen circumlocuted again. He spoke of a wolf, goat and grass wanting a boatman's services to cross a river. The problem was that if the boatman did so, with the three of them ending up on the same bank, they would devour each other. According to Xue, the ministry saw itself as the boatman. The wolf represented what he called third parties, (which could be the NGOs and outsiders getting involved), the goat the company, and the workers the lowly grass.

Soon after making this nebulous comparison, Chen told the company's representative, Tang Xuan, something to this effect: "Go and settle this properly. I have to go now because I have an exam to take tomorrow."

And with that, the meeting broke up.

Facing total intransigence on the employer's part, the workers thought about hiring a lawyer, but they had no money. Eventually they turned to an NGO, TWC2 (Transient Workers Count Too), who are now trying to help them though they too have very limited influence and resources.

Snatching and robbing

Along the way, some of the workers in the group gave up and accepted the company's unfair and miserly terms, and were repatriated –- or at least that was the impression that Yawning Bread got. Six held on. But for these six, things got nastier.

Tuesday, 2 December: Four or five security agents hired by the employer, and led by the company representative Tang Xuan, went to Xue Chengming's dormitory between 10 and 11 in the morning and took him away under coercion. One co-worker witnessed it and informed Xue Hanming. Shortly after, agents from another security company took Chen Yuguang away from his dormitory, which was at a different location. To Yawning Bread, the two instances sound awfully like kidnapping.

Friends tried to call Xue Chengming on his two mobile phone numbers, but these were switched off. Nor could friends reach Chen Yuguang.

In the latter's case, the security agency which snatched him was identified as a company with a name like "UTR". It was traced, and TWC2 rang them to enquire if Chen was there. It was established that he was. Yang Zhiqiang, Xue Hanming, Sha Najak from TWC2, together with Stephanie Chok -– a Singaporean who helps workers in her personal capacity -– went there and had a chance to speak with him.

Chen told them that his handphone had been taken from him by the security agents. One could assume that Xue Chengming too had been relieved of his two phones by the security agents who seized him.

Yawning Bread asked the men at the interview: Who owned the phones? They said the men did. They were the personal property of Xue and Chen. Well, dear readers, doesn't that amount to robbery? And wouldn't keeping people incommunicado reinforce the justification for calling this kidnap?

Wednesday, 3 December: Around midnight Tuesday/Wednesday, police arrived at UTR -- almost surely a result of a phone call from the employer Xuyi to the police -- and took Chen Yuguang to Central Police Station.

When Stephanie went there Wednesday afternoon, she also enquired with the police about Xue Chengming. She told them that no one had been able to contact him since the day before and people needed to know his whereabouts and if he was safe. After some pleading, the police checked their database and found him as being in custody at Bedok Police Station. His status was that he had been "arrested" for overstaying.

Were they overstayers? This could not be so, because Xue Chengming, for one, had a letter from the Ministry of Manpower setting an appointment date of 4 December, and it was only 2 or 3 December when the police took him in.

The way things are supposed to work in Singapore is that when employees are in a dispute with en employer, the Ministry of Manpower issues them with special passes so that they can remain in Singapore until the issues have been resolved. Having a letter from the Ministry of Manpower setting up an appointment is a good sign that these people had been put on special passes.

Moreover, a certain Nigel, an officer with the Ministry of Manpower, would later confirm to TWC2 that these men had been issued with special passes, but he also said that these passes were handed over to the employer at the time of issuance. However, Nigel added that the "passes had expired because the employer neglected to renew them" according to an email Stephanie received from TWC2.

This does not make any sense, so the above information may be wrong. How can Manpower entrust the special passes to the employer when the employer and workers are locked in a dispute? How can the employer have the discretion to "renew" or not, the special passes, when the employer would have an interest in throwing the workers out of the country?

Whatever it is, it's quite evident that the men are not overstayers -– and based on usual procedure, they would not be -– but the police seemed to think he was. It is believed that like Chen Yuguang's case, Xuyi called the police after their security agents had seized Xue Chengming, with Xuyi telling the police that Xue was an overstayer. The police appeared to be uninterested in checking their information. Effectively, therefore, the police were holding people unlawfully.

Thursday, 4 December: Xue Hanming had his near miss with security agents in the lobby of the Ministry of Manpower, as described at the start of this story.

Police said, "Don't come."

That (Thursday) afternoon at 15:08h, Xue Hanming got a phone call from a police officer named Ye, who told him that his employer had made a police report that he (Xue Hanming) had gone missing. The employer must have called the police right after they failed to nab him at the ministry lobby.

"I am not missing," Xue replied. "Shall I come to the police station? I would be happy to do that, so that you can protect me from my employer.

"Mr Ye then said, 'No, no. Don't come'," Xue recalled with a laugh.

The police officer then suggested that Xue seek help from the Chinese embassy. Xue said he had tried that but the embassy told him it was a domestic Singapore matter.

Fly yourself home or be caned

Xue Hanming receiving an unexpected phone call from Chen Yuguang, who was calling from the ICA where he was being held.

Halfway through Yawning Bread's interview, Xue Hanming received a call from Chen Yuguang on his handphone. Chen and Xue Chengming had by then been dumped by the police onto the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). Chen was calling from an ICA landline (his cellphone having been seized). He was under pressure from the ICA to find the money to buy his air ticket home, and was appealing to his friends for help.

Why was Chen Yuguang and Xue Chengming looking to buy their own air tickets home? you should ask. After all, the rule is that employers are responsible for paying for that. All workers in Singapore know that.

My guess is that the ICA were threatening them with imprisonment and caning -– these being the penalties for illegal overstaying -– and pressuring him to accept an injustice.

* * * * *
This story started with an abusive employer, but what got me interested was the role played by the government departments. From this, you can see that they were not at all interested in helping workers. Mediation became story-telling in the hope of discouraging the workers from pressing their claims. No mention is made of the company being prosecuted for violating our Employment Act.

The police held people for overstaying without a shred of evidence that they were overstayers.

The ICA held people in an armlock, getting them to fund their own flight home, with or without being paid their wages.
They all just want to get rid of the problem with no regard for justice, law or rights. The source of the problem is the employer, but by action or inaction, our government is abetting all these abuses, ranging from cheating people of their wages, to robbery of their handphones, to kidnap.

It's not just bad officers. It is the system. There are many things wrong with the foreign worker work permit system, as illustrated by this case, which I will point out in a follow-up article.

But meanwhile, I hope you feel as angry as I do.

© Yawning Bread

Video Of Workers' Dormitory

A shophouse dormitory for China construction workers in Singapore.

Row settled, no pay cut for 186 China workers

This article first appeared in The Straits Times, Friday, October 10 2008, Page B2

A SALARY dispute between some 180 China construction workers and the builder of the hotel at the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort has been resolved.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said in a statement yesterday that it had successfully mediated in the row over a proposed pay cut.

The South Korean company, Ssangyong Engineering and Construction, has agreed not to cut the workers' monthly pay from the contracted sum of $1,700 to $1,200. This threat came after it found a sub-contractor whose workers were cheaper.

Ssangyong had also alleged that the 186 workers in question were 'very lazy'. They were told that if they refused to take the pay cut, they would be flown home with $1,000 in compensation, or would have to find another job within two weeks.

Crying foul, the workers lodged a protest with MOM, which discussed the issue with representatives of Ssangyong on Tuesday.

The ministry said yesterday that the company had agreed to continue paying the workers their monthly salary of $1,700 and to 'separate the performance issue from the contracted salary'.

Ssangyong's senior manager, Mr S.H. An, told The Straits Times yesterday that it would keep to the terms of its original contract with the workers.

However, he added that '$1,700 is very high according to the market rate' and 'up to now, we cannot see any improvement in their performance'.

One of the China workers, who wanted to be known only as Mr Shen, said he was satisfied with the way the matter had been resolved.

The 38-year-old, who has worked here for six years, said he and his co-workers had not slackened in their work even when negotiations were ongoing.

'We work 28 days a month, 12 hours a day. This is the first time I have been caught in a pay dispute in Singapore,' he said in Mandarin.

The Chinese workers are helping to build a 2,600-room hotel at the integrated resort, due to be completed next year.

They have worked for Ssangyong for fewer than four months, although many have worked here for a few years with other employers.

If they were to lose their jobs at Ssangyong now, they would also have 15per cent of their earnings deducted as they have not fulfilled the minimum 180 work-days required under the contract, Mr Shen added.

By CLARISSA OON

A Shophouse Dorm For China Construction Workers in Singapore