ChinaWorkersSingapore

Link to Migrant Workers Singapore

2009-01-20T20:18:00.001-08:00

For a more comprehensive collection of articles on migrant workers in Singapore (including the ones found on this blog), please click on Migrant Workers Singapore

THE URL: http://migrantworkerssingapore.blogspot.com/

China Construction Workers Still at MOM on 2 Jan 09

2009-01-04T21:27:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the New Paper on 2 Jan 2009.

Firm's 'new wage structure' halves their pay
Tan May Ping and Shree Ann Mathavan
2 January 2009
The New Paper

JUST a day after they turned out in full force at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), hordes of China workers were there again yesterday.

The workers claimed that their complaints about their salaries being drastically reduced had yet to be settled with their employers.

Their other bone of contention was that their employers were taking too long to pay their outstanding wages from September onwards.

More than 100 workers from Zhonghe Huaxing Development and China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction Co showed up yesterday and crowded the main entrance of the MOM building at Havelock Road.

Security personnel and the police gotthem to move to the side, away from theentrance.

About 200 workers had gone to the MOM on Tuesday to complain that they had not been paid for four months.

They had also objected to the many 'unfair' deductions from their salaries.

The ministry said on Tuesday that with its intervention, the issues were amicably resolved.

The employers, it said, had banked the September salaries into the workers' accounts that day and had also undertaken to pay all salary arrears by Chinese New Year.

It added that the employers had also undertaken to pay basic salaries on time going forward, and that the parties had reached an understanding on other differences.

But the workers were still unhappy yesterday.

Speaking to The New Paper yesterday, they said their average monthly salary had been reduced from $1,300 to just $700 plus a variable component that depends on their volume of work.

One construction worker in his 30s claimed they were informed of this only on Monday, when they found posters detailing the change in wage structure posted up in their various accommodations.

He said: 'We were promised before coming (to Singapore) that our pay would be $1,300, now it's completely changed.

'What do they mean by this? We should be paid our entire salary.'

He also said that as the company did not divulge how this variable component is calculated, they would be at the mercy of the company.

Like many of his colleagues, this worker who came to Singapore to work in July last year claimed to have been paid only a fraction of the wages due to him.

'$6,000 still owed'

In the six months he has been here, he claimed he has been paid only $1,000 so far.

Some $6,000 in wages are still owed to him, he claimed.

Workers we spoke to also added that the company's schedule of paying them their overdue wages was taking too long.

A construction worker in his 40s told The New Paper: 'All of us have wives, kids, ageing parents to support and many have borrowed from loan sharks to come here.

'How can they take so long? We are anxious, especially since we want to send money in time for Chinese New Year.'

This worker said that they were informed in a meeting with their employers on Tuesday that the monthly wage deduction of $550 would be discontinued.

This deduction was supposed to be returned to them in a lump sum upon completion of their two-year contract.

However, the $150 deduction for water and electricity would remain.

That is something the workers continue to be unhappy about.

Said the worker: 'We already earn so little and yet they want to deduct this and that.'

The workers hoped that by turning up once again at the doorsteps of MOM, the wage dispute could be settled once and for all.

He said: 'We are hoping for a resolution, so this is the only thing we can do.

'If we go to work or just sleep, the problem won't be settled.'

When contacted, a spokesman for the company said the workers had 'wrongly perceived' that the company's wage structure had changed.

He said the variable component of the wage structure has always been there and is necessary because it takes into account the volume of work that workers do.

'That's our right as an employer. It's not a pay cut, it depends on the work they do.'

He said: 'If workers don't work and keep going to MOM, why should we pay them?'

However, when asked about why the posters clarifying the wage structure were put up, he declined to comment further.

But he noted that the salaries stated by the workers were not listed in the companies' contracts.

He said: 'That is the agents' promise, not ours.'

An MOM spokesman said that some of the workers returned to the ministry to raise additional issues, and it is looking into the matter.

The rest of the workers returned to work yesterday, she added.

'China Workers Seek MOM'S Help for the Third Time'

2009-01-02T19:17:00.001-08:00

The following article appeared in TODAY, Friday January 2, 2009, p.8

CHINA WORKERS SEEK MOM'S HELP FOR THE THIRD TIME

It may have been a public holiday, but with not much else to do on New Year's Day, a group of about 100 construction workers from China turned up at the Ministry of Manpower for the third consecutive day to express their unhappiness about their situation.

The workers from Zhonghe Huaxing Development and China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction first turned up on Tuesday to complain about unauthorised salary "deductions" and wages owed to them. Although the Ministry intervened, and their employer agreed to bank in September's wages, the workers are apparently not willing to wait until the Chinese New Year for the rest of their salary arrears to be paid.

Meanwhile, with more migrant workers coming forward to say they have lost their jobs and months of salaries, the non-profit Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics has set up a special fund to help those who could end up going home penniless, or worse, in debt after coming to Singapore.

With its Institute of Public Character status restored, all donations to its Peace and Justice Fund 2009 will be tax deductible.

For more information, visit www.home.org.sg or email vip@home.org.sg

'Employers swayed, workers get paid'

2009-01-01T10:15:00.000-08:00

SUMMARY: 200 China national workers showed up at the Ministry of Manpower on Tuesday, 30 Dec 2008, to complain about unauthorized salary deductions and wages owed to them. The workers are employed by Zhonghe Huaxing Development and China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction. The articles below, The New Paper and TODAY, provide more details. The articles also highlight the increase in such incidents for foreign workers (both China as well as Bangladeshi nationals) from other companies.

Employers swayed, workers get paid

Construction company said a change of staff led to the delay in wage payments

By Tan May Ping and Shree Ann Mathavan

January 01, 2009

FOR 200 Chinese foreign workers, their show of solidarity at the Manpower Ministry (MOM) seemed to have swayed their employer.

They complained that they had not been paid for four months.

Late last night, in response to the workers' pay claims, a spokesman for Zhonghe Huaxing Development, a construction company, said it had credited its workers' salaries for September into their bank accounts yesterday afternoon.

He added that the salaries for October would be paid within a week and wages for November would be paid before Chinese New Year.

The spokesman explained that a change of staff had led to the delay in wage payments.

He said in Mandarin: 'We are working with MOM and our workers to change the way salaries are paid.

'Workers will receive their salary every month as per the Employment Act in Singapore.'

However, he cautioned: 'Workers going on strike as they did today is illegal. This is a regular salary dispute.'

Workers had also objected to the many 'unfair' deductions in workers' salaries. With regard to this, he said 'some changes' would be made as well.

The workers had gathered at the MOM building around 8am yesterday. Their huge numbers, they hoped, would press home their grievances.

Speaking to The New Paper on condition of anonymity, the workers said they were promised monthly salaries of $1,200 to $1,300.

This, they said, was stated in the contracts which they had signed with agents in China before coming to Singapore.

Each of them paid 30,000 yuan ($6,300) to the agents and they worked at various construction sites, including the integrated resort at Marina Bay and a school in Boon Keng.

But things were different once they started work.

One worker in his 40s from Jiangsu province said he was not paid for four out of the five months since he arrived in Singapore in August.

Another worker - also from Jiangsu province - who is in his 30s, said he was not paid for the first three months.

He and others were paid their first month's wages in the fourth month.

They were supposed to have been paid their second month's wages in the fifth month. The remaining back pay was to follow the same pattern.

The worker said he had been paid only a total of $1,100 in the six months he had worked.

The figure was so low because of numerous deductions from his salary.

A total of $700 - more than 50 per cent of his pay - was deducted.

These included $150 for water and electricity bills at the various places he was housed, and a deduction of $550, to be returned on completion of the two-year contract.

Another worker in his 30s, who also arrived in August, said: 'All we are asking for is our pay. It's very unreasonable to have all these deductions.

The workers said they gathered to make a mass complaint because they felt that the company was ignoring their concerns.

The construction worker in his 40s said: 'We have no choice. We called the company, but could never reach them on the phone. That's why we have come to MOM.'

Agreed his colleague: 'It wasn't one person's idea. After speaking to each other, we realised that we all had the same problem. So we decided to take action since it involves everyone.'

Another worker who declined to give his age said: 'If the company pays me, I will continue to work for them.'

When contacted, MOM said it rendered assistance to some 200 foreign workers from Zhonghe Huaxing Development as well as China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction Co.

It is understood that the two companies share the same management.

The spokesman said that after MOM's intervention, the issues were amicably resolved. 'The key issues were salary arrears from September 08, and workers' unhappiness with the employers for wanting to revise certain employment terms,' she said.

'The employers have banked in the September 08 salaries into the workers' accounts today... (and) have also undertaken to pay basic salaries on time going forward.'

She added that the parties have also reached an understanding on other differences.

URL: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,188412,00.html?

'Don't want to work for less pay? Don't work then'

By Shree Ann Mathavan

January 01, 2009

THE month of December has seen a number of complaints by foreign workers here.

Among them was a group of 20 from Shanghai Construction (Group) General Co.

They claimed they have not been paid since September. They also alleged their construction company tried to get them to sign a contract with a lower salary range late last month.

When they refused, they were told to stop working.

Five of these workers spoke to The New Paper on condition of anonymity.

Their contracts signed through agents in China had promised that they would receive a salary range of $1,200 to $1,500. But the actual payment fell short, they claimed.

The workers typically clock long hours with no overtime pay at construction sites, they said.

For the first three months, they were given a token monthly allowance of $200. From the fourth month, the remainder of their monthly salaries were released to them in delayed fashion.

One worker in his 20s said they typically receive their first month's salary only from the fourth month, the second month's on the fifth month and so forth.

He said: 'This was not something stated in our contract.'

He said he had borrowed 30,000 yuan ($6,300) from friends and family to pay his agent in China.

Apart from delayed payment, the workers also had to contend with several deductions from their wages.

These included $300, which would be returned to them in a lump sum once they complete their one-year contract. The other deductions were for living expenses like food, said the workers who live in housing in the Geylang area.

They said they did not understand the new contract because it was not written in Chinese.

One thing they understood, however, was the salary range which was written in numerals.

They told their boss they wouldn't sign and went to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to complain. They are waiting for their dispute to be resolved.

When contacted, a spokesman for Shanghai Construction said: 'We don't wish to respond.'

In response to The New Paper's queries, an MOM spokesman confirmed that 20 workers approached it for help with their salary arrears.

The spokesman said: 'MOM has conciliated and settled the case for eight of the workers. The remaining workers' cases are being investigated.'

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,188410,00.html?

200 Chinese Foreign Workers Gather at ministry over Pay Dispute

2009-01-01T00:53:00.000-08:00

The following article, published 1 Jan 2009, is reproduced from The New Paper.

'Let's tell MOM'

Nanny state? Some foreign workers like it. One group of 200 gets speedy results after gathering at ministry yesterday

By Tan May Ping and Shree Ann Mathavan

January 01, 2009

IT WAS a unanimous decision by the foreign workers, so they converged at one spot even though they lived in different places.

They banded together yesterday and showed up at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) building on Havelock Road to lodge complaints against their employer, construction firm Zhonghe Huaxing Development.

Not just a few workers' representatives but a group of 200 showed up for greater impact.

Foreign workers with grievances, like them, are both seen and heard in Singapore, judging from a string of cases over the years.

Though many don't speak English well or have high education, they often quickly learn the art of seeking attention from the right people.

Step 1: MOM which oversees the welfare of workers.

Step 2: The media which migrant workers have access to.

In the case of the Zhonghe Huaxing workers, they alleged they were not getting the salaries due to them, and objected to alleged unfair deductions from their wages.

Yesterday, the first group showed up around 8am. As subsequent batches arrived on the MRT and public buses, the workers clapped and cheered in a show of solidarity.

By 9am, their numbers had swelled to more than 200. They seemed to feel there was strength in numbers.

Security personnel at the building were put on alert. The men were later herded to a space at the back of the building, but still visible to those who were in the lobby.

They sat on the ground as MOM officers spoke to them, and the security officers stood watch. Their sheer numbers attracted stares from those inside the building.

When The New Paper team arrived at 10am, a group of about six had broken away from the rest and were outside the main entrance. When approached, they were anxious to tell their stories.

They alleged they had not been paid for a few months, and were frustrated that more than half of their salaries were deducted each month for various expenses.

Sleeping under tree

Another group of workers was spotted at the MOM yesterday.

This group of 18 Bangladeshi men had been featured in the media last week after spending the weekend sleeping on cardboard under a tree at Jalan Kayu.

Yesterday, they gave their statements to MOM about their pay dispute with their employers. The group's spokesman, Mr Mohammad Monerul Islam Monto, 28, claimed they were given work for only about three of the seven months that they were here.

He told The New Paper: 'We borrowed money and paid our agents $10,000 each, but haven't been given our pay since we came here. If we go back (without any money), we are dead.'

But their employers, JM Building Construction and Jericho Marine Services, had earlier said the workers were paid, and that they worked for only a fraction of their seven months here.

The other side

Employers can't take complaints lightly because they are subject to labour laws and are responsible for the conduct and repatriation of all foreign workers.

Meanwhile, the authorities don't want a wrong impression created that a significant proportion of foreign workers here get a raw deal. This is suggested by their responses when workers stage a mass event.

Yesterday, an MOM officer interrupted the interview with Zhonghe Huaxing workers and said that journalists should speak to his colleagues from the corporate communications department, which usually handles media queries.

But as the interviews were conducted outside the building, they continued.

'Did he say that you cannot talk to us?' one of the workers asked. Of course, there are no such restrictions here.

Just then, the workers noticed one of their bosses approaching. They said he was also from China.

'You'd better watch what you say,' the man said in Mandarin to the workers, and stood close by, determined to break up the interview. The workers turned silent and said they would speak to us later.

A member of MOM's corporate communications department then showed up, and said that the ministry would issue a statement.

Could we speak to the other workers?

After checking with her colleagues, she said it was not possible as the workers were speaking with the MOM officers and it could take some time. She added: 'It's better if you speak with the employer.'

When The New Paper later rang the workers to enquire about their welfare, they said they didn't have any idea where they were but were given some food to eat.

It is understood the workers were taken to an MOM office on Kim Seng Road. They were later gathered in a hall where they had a meeting with MOM officials.

'We were told to work with the company,' said one worker in his 30s from Jiangsu province.

Their bosses and some security personnel stood by. The workers were not allowed by their employer to leave the building. Once the meeting was over, the company transported them back to their housing.

And their show of solidarity worked. By the end of the day, their employers had met their demands. (See report on Page 4.)

Free meals

Meanwhile, the Bangladeshi workers from Jericho Marine said two of their colleagues involved in the pay dispute had flown home in the morning.

Said Mr Mohammad: 'Their relatives sent them money to buy air tickets to go home. We have no money, so we are stuck here.'

They are currently getting free daily dinners at a restaurant on Desker Road.

On 22 Dec, The Straits Times reported that the workers had to leave their dormitory in Tuas when their project in Jurong was completed. They were bound for a dormitory in Bukit Batok, but at the last minute, the deal was called off by the person in charge there.

That left the workers with nowhere to stay, and as a temporary measure, they were taken to the company's workers' quarters at a shophouse unit in Jalan Kayu.

But the workers said the apartment was overcrowded, and opted to sleep on a nearby grass patch instead.

After the men approached welfare group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, they were put up at various shophouses in Little India.

URL: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,188406,00.html?

'Jobless, Unpaid, Unfed'
180 Bangladeshi workers (see pix) from marine company Tipper Corporation abandoned at living quarters this month. Employer claimed two sub-contractors were responsible for workers and had abandoned them. They agreed to move to a new dormitory after boss promised they would get their money.

Found dead in Dorm
Bangladeshi worker, believed to have been covered in a rash, found dead in dormitory at Tagore Industrial Estate on Sunday. Ten other workers, diagnosed with chicken pox, warded for observation at the Communicable Disease Centre. The dead man, Mr Mohd Kamaluddin, 28, had stayed in a dormitory with 400 other workers.

'Fell from fourth storey'
On 9 Dec, Bangladeshi worker, suffering from chicken pox for three days, found lying injured at the bottom of dormitory. Mr Khokon Mollah Abu Taher, 24, died hours later in hospital. The shipyard worker with Star Weld believed to have fallen from fourth story of building at Tuas.

MP NOT SURPRISED TO SEE MORE SUCH CASES
Labour MP Halimah Yacob said that every time there is a downturn, cases of unpaid wages escalate in the non-unionised sector.

Madam Halimah said: "The situation was the same in the last downturn and I am not surprised that we are seeing a repeat of it now that we are in a serious downturn."

She said that such cases typically involve smaller companies that have lost contracts or face cashflow problems.

"Foreign workers tend to be worst affected because unlike locals they lack mobility and cannot just walk out of their jobs if their companies don't pay them...," Madam Halimah said.

She said some may continue working without pay in the hope that things will get better and their companies will pay up.

"But we know that often does not happen," she said.

200 China National Workers Turn Up at MOM

2009-01-01T00:01:00.000-08:00

TODAY, 31 Dec 2008

Are these workers just the tip of the iceberg?
By Leong Wee Keat

IN WHAT is becoming a familiar sight, a group of about 200 China national workers turned up at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) yesterday morning to complain about unauthorised salary deductions and wages owed to them. A group of 28 Bangladeshi workers have also filed similarcomplaints, claiming they had not been paid for the past four months.

Far from being isolated headline makers, recent reports of workers being left in the lurch seem to be the tip of an iceberg.

And the economic crunch, which has led to a swelling excess of manpower in many sectors, is bringing to the surface like never before underhanded practices — such as unsanctioned deductions, illegal deployment of workers and strong-arm tactics by employers during conciliation attempts.

Mr Zhai Yongli, one of the 200 workers at the MOM yesterday, was fearful he would have no money to send home for next month’s Chinese New Year. Like his fellow workers, the 36-year-old alleged that his employer made unauthorised deductions from his salary each month, supposedly for a “deposit” — a sum that has amounted to $8,000 so far.

Other workers from Zhonghe Huaxing Development and China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction claimed they were not paid for three months and that they had been subcontracted to other employers without their knowledge. When approached by TODAY, their employer, Mr Ye Fuliang, declined comment.

The China Nationals’ case echoes another high-profile case two weeks ago, when 179 :Bangladeshi workers were abandoned with months of wages unpaid; their registered employer is being probed for illegally deploying them.

TODAY understands that it is not uncommon practice for contractors or employers to bring in more workers than they need, then deploy them out illicitly to another sector for a kickback. But with the downturn and work drying up, these excess workers are left sitting on their hands.

Happily, for the 200 Chinese workers, a MOM spokesperson said late last night that the dispute had been “amicably” resolved – the employers yesterday banked in September’s wages into the workers’ accounts, and have pledged to make good on all arrears by the Chinese New Year, with the first instalment next week.

“The parties have also reached an understanding on other differences,” said the spokesperson.

Strong-arm tactics
Meanwhile, the Bangladeshis who had approached MOM yesterday claimed: they feared repatriation by their employer if they returned to their dormitory. The group of 28 have been sleeping along Desker Road for the past three nights.

Some employers have cancelled work permits even as pay disputes are being settled with MOM – presumably to pressure workers to cave in.

In October and November, 42 PRC workers from Xuyi Building Engineering Company approached MOM to recover their salary arrears and resolve penalty payments. According to MOM, the company unilaterally cancelled the work permits of six claimants, without applying for Special Passes to allow them to remain here pending the settlement of their claims. The six would have thus flouted immigration laws, and could be jailed and fined.

“MOM takes a serious view of such conduct by the employer, which jeopardizes the conciliation process,” said a spokesman. The employer was warned for failing to pay its workers on time, and “its irresponsible conduct” of cancelling the permits.

What such examples show, is that foreign worker’s situation is “quite precarious”, in Madam Halimah Yacob’s words.

“They can only work for one employer. So when they don’t get paid, and they owe creditors back home, they keep quiet, hoping that things will get better. They can’t walk out of the job like the Singaporean can, find another job and file a complaint with MOM,” said the MP who sits on the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Manpower.

She called: on MOM to step up enforcement against rogue employers and to review the foreign workers’ quota – fixed during times of good economic growth – to prevent similar situations from cropping up next year and in 2010.

MP Denise Phua said more agencies should be engaged in solving foreign-worker woes. “The final, total solution needs to be stitched not just by MOM, but with the relevant foreign embassies and other stakeholders like employers’ federations and NTUC ... from ensuring basics like food and lodging, to job placements where possible,” she said.

URL:http://www.todayonline.com/articles/295024.asp

Workers Taken by Repatriation Companies

2008-12-11T08:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-08T22:43:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-08T21:30:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-19T22:27:00.000-08:00

A shophouse dormitory for China construction workers in Singapore.

Row settled, no pay cut for 186 China workers

2008-11-19T04:29:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-19T00:05:00.001-08:00