Government too sucks the blood and sweat of foreign workers

by Bruce

My company has been badly hit by the economic crisis since last September. On top of the crisis, we were also hit very hard by the "operations" of the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) safety and health department. I personally feel that MOM's system sucks and have written two letters to the Prime Minister's Office and the Manpower Minister respectively to voice my concerns/appeal.

 
Issues of worker agents/training centres

My understanding is that Singapore set up accredited agencies in approved labour source countries to "train" the workers and issue certificates to them so that they are "qualified" to come to Singapore to work. This is the first problem. Why do I say so? These courses need fees and can only be afforded by people who can raise the money, not necessarily the "qualified" people.

In Thailand, I have seen skillful workers working in small teams to complete a project. They stay at the site with their wives and co-workers, work as a team (small group) and complete the job. What does this mean? It means these workers are multi-skilled. They can do all kinds of work from foundation to brick wall to electrical works. But when I ask one of them why they did not consider coming to Singapore to work, he highlighted the deterrents: expensive training centre fees and agent fees.

The Singapore government once talked about wanting to bring in only construction workers with multi-skills. The plan was abolished because (as far as I know) they could not cope with the huge registration of courses that came in from local contractors in order to comply with this regulation. We should re-look at this training centre idea and re-think a better way to bring in more skillful workers. During our past years of hiring "qualified" workers, with proper certificates, I realised that many went through a crash course at these centers, got their certificates and came over here to work. The truth is, they cannot perform. It's their money that helped get them here.

While reviewing the idea of having these training centers, we should also find a way to prevent middlemen - the agents - from having the opportunity to take advantage of the workers. One way I can see is for the Singapore government to place civil servants there in "test centres" instead. We will not train, we will only test them in their skills. Why civil servants? Because they are supposed to work within the frame work of the law and conduct fair tests. These tests should also be conducted to test skills and not procedures. Once the workers come to Singapore, we can train them in procedures and safety.

By having Singapore government test centres, workers in overseas countries can register directly with these test centers. Employers here looking for workers can then request for the types of workers they need (perhaps through a web portal) and then we will have the whole demand-supply worked out. Contractors who wish to employ workers should pay for the services of these government test centres. The employer should also pay for the airfare for the workers to come here and arrange to pick them up at airport – that's very fair. Most importantly, we should cut out the agents who collect huge ridiculous sums of money from the workers.

 
Domiciling workers in Singapore

Under the present law, once workers arrive in Singapore, the employer must be in charge of their welfare. I think there needs to be some adjustments in this area too. The areas that have been addressed are medical care, hospitalisation, and workmen's compensation. The area of lodging is still a bit crazy, too. Right now, we are trying to isolate the workers at "centres" far away from civilisation. I think this is not necessarily the best idea, the reason being, by doing so, the government is dictating the cost of housing these workers. Isolating them in "camps" looks like a bad idea. They are human too.

What we should think of are the needs of our contractors too. For example, for years, workers have been staying at factories all over Singapore. A small contractor will have a few guys stay at his factory; this has been going on for years. The workers like this idea because they get their own space, decorate their room to their own liking and treat these factories like their own home. I do not see staying at the factories as a big risk, as long as certain guidelines are met. In this case, we do not need to set up "camps" for these workers to stay in. In every estate, we can regulate the number of workers living there. Thus, contractors can reduce cost, workers will be happier and we won't look like a bunch of authoritarians housing workers in internment camps. I think allowing workers to stay in factories is just a move to adjust to what is already happening for years.

As for allowing workers to stay in landed houses and HDB flats, I really do not know what to say. I guess it should be ok as long as they do not bring back their tools and machines, but just simply staying there. Right now, the rules say that these foreign workers must stay in dormitories. This mean that even if you are a very rich man who wants to let your workers stay in your bungalow, that is not allowed. I think the law should set the minimum standard and not classify what type of humans stay in what type of houses.

On the point that the employers are made responsible for everything that has to do with the workers, I think this has to change too. For example, the employer currently needs to supply a bond for each worker, which then gives the employer the right to "catch" the workers when they run away from work. I think the usual employment law should apply. Employer should not have any special rights over another human being. We cannot be allowed to catch the workers or to detain them, or use any force on them. If they break the rules, they should face the law of the land. When you make the employer responsible, you have to give the employers special rights over the custody of the workers. No one should have any special rights over anyone.

However, the employer should have jobs for the workers. If the workers are not happy working for the boss, they should be free to ask to go back. In this case, I feel that a scheme is needed under which there is a "deduction" from the first few months' salaries, in order to make up a bond (placed with the government) to cover the repatriation cost.

 
In case when workers run into money issues with employers

We cannot assume that once salaries are not paid on time, the bosses must be bad. What happens if a company's staff are willing to rough it out with the bosses? We should leave these choices to the workers to work out with the bosses. How can we dictate that workers' salaries must be paid on time? This can be a general rule, but we must also allow a company and its employees to work things out among themselves, especially in times of crisis.

But if a worker does not agree to postponement, and is not paid on time, he can choose to report the case. In this instance, the worker's name should be recycled into our pool of foreign manpower to allow other companies to employ him, instead of still importing more men/women even when there is an over supply situation here. If we give the company and the workers the option of letting these workers recycle into the work force (back to the portal I spoke about earlier) than Singapore can do without unnecessary manpower imports and employers will also be given a choice to cut their manpower strength.

 
MOM need to re-look at many of their systems

I agree with you that MOM is not helpful to the workers. Right now, when a company is late on levies [Note by Yawning Bread: a monthly "levy" is a payroll tax on employers who hire foreign labour], MOM will revoke the employees' Work Permits, making these workers "illegal" in Singapore. This is against all human logic. When a company is late on levy, it means the company has financial problems, but they may have project jobs still on hand. 

First of all, I wonder what this levy payment is all about? It is said to be a price mechanism, but I feel it is equivalent to that "agent mechanism" to take advantage of the workers. You see, a levy of S$150 a month means $5 a day for the workers. When you make employers pay a high levy, workers will inevitably get less. When a worker has worked three years in Singapore, MOM will have collected $5,400 from them. This amount may, in some instances, by even more than what the workers paid initially to the agent to come to Singapore. This is a huge amount at the expenses of the workers. I feel that this so-called price mechanism to regulate the supply of workers (i.e. the levy) should be scrapped totally. We should not be making this kind of money from workers. We must recognise their contribution. Without them, our shipyard and construction costs would go crazy, making Singapore uncompetitive.

Now look at the total picture: The employer has to pay monthly levies. If the company runs into financial problems and is two months late for levy payments, all Work Permits are revoked. This is crazy because when you revoke the permits of the workers, the company has to close down immediately. How can a government policy, no matter what it is meant for, drive a company to close shop? This is especially true in time of crisis like now. 

To add to the ridiculous situation, if the company can finally pay up the outstanding levy, MOM will call for an additional levy bond. This levy bond is six times the levy the company is paying and MOM will hold it for 12 months. Look at a calculation this way: A company has to pay levy bond for 100 workers = $150 x100 = $15,000.00 x 6 months = $90,000. This amount will be frozen at MOM for 12 months. This approach is as good as asking a beggar to hand you a pot of gold as surety. It is ridiculous to ask a company to pay 6 times the levy as levy bond when it already has problems paying one month of levy.

Now, I understand why some bosses cannot solve the MOM levy problems, especially when they have 1,000 workers. The surety they have to deposit with MOM is absurdly huge, and this is on top of the standard $5,000 bond an employer must place with the MOM for each worker they hire.

The net result of such rules is that when a company faces cashflow problems, companies would preferentially settle its outstandings with MOM first. The ministry gets to collect its levies in full, but the worker's salaries will have to be delayed.

I agree wholeheartedly: workers must get ALL their salaries, every dollar of it.

But the present system, with MOM acting quickly to terminate workers' passes and arranging for them to go back, often means the workers don't get their full salaries. Something is wrong with our system towards these foreign workers.  

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None