By Lynn Lee of Lianain Films
Of late we’ve developed a strange habit. We can’t meet a Bangladeshi migrant labourer without asking him a somewhat intrusive question.
How much did you pay your agent?
Is it kinda rude? Maybe. Call it an occupational hazard then. We must have sprung that question on hundreds of workers when we were making “Human Trade” and “Migrant Dreams”. It was central to our investigation.
So how much did you pay your agent?
Too much, is a standard answer. The ballpark figure? 400,000 Bangladeshi takas for a two-year contract in Singapore. 250,000 takas for a similar deal in Malaysia. That’s around S$8,000 and S$5,000 respectively – a staggering sum for the average Bangladeshi worker who makes around S$150 a month, if he is lucky. The only way he can pay his agent is by selling family land, or pawning his wife’s jewellery, or by taking out a high-interest loan from a moneylender. Or by doing all three things.
But why does he have to pay so much?
_________________________
Read the rest of the article here
______________________________________________________
I wonder the recent levy increased by the govt will affect these Bangladeshi workers. Obviously, if the employers are not going to foot the bills and some may even past it on to cut their already pathetic salary further. This can also mean some of them can even be sent back and this can be suicidal to most of them. I cannot imagine how chaotic the problem be be but when people are forced to the limit, anything can happen.
Can’t believe our government can close one eye to this kind of trade! Only 3 possiblities…
1. They know the problem but don’t have any idea how to deal with it.
2. They really don’t know there is such a problem- becos they are sleeping.
3. They are benefiting from the problem itself.
Either one or two or all the above, we should make a change to the top people.
We deserve a more ‘humane’ Singapore.
An even more interesting question to ask the worker would be: if you had to give up so much to come here to work, why do you still do it?
I suspect quite a number of the workers are being swindled. If not, then they probably view it as an acceptable trade-off, since they’ll still be better off paying exorbitant sums and working here than just staying in their homes earning an even more measly wage. Everybody wins – it’s a free market.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/002622.asp
What should be encouraged would be firmer regulations and to find some way to keep prospective workers informed so they won’t get swindled of their money, time, and opportunity.
As for the MOM’s move, on one level it is a propaganda act. On another, by passing on the costs onto the labor market, it decreases the supply of foreign workers, and open up more opportunities for locals. Heck, when employers are unable to obtain enough labour, they’ll have to resort to locals, and be forced to raise wages in order to hire these locals. The costs will, however, be passed onto Singaporeans in one way or another, just not so obviously.
An acceptable trade-off? Perhaps.
so much for josephine teo telling mr low thia khiang removing the levies will be “disastrous”. while no policy is perfect, they have clearly not critically analysed such an asinine policy which would not only marginalise low wage workers further, but expose them to exploitation by unscrupulous employers looking to make a quick buck.
and anyways, the levies are not that ostentatious. i thought the hike would be in the thousands – that might be a greater spur to discourage hiring FT. if they wanted to really help alleviate this labour problem, they would do more. implementing this across all industries would be difficult, particularly in sectors like construction, where we DO need foreign help.
the way i see it, it’s a half-arsed measure that would only reap short-term gains, if any, and definitely NOT long-term.
I can tell you for certain that the authorities KNOW that this is going on… and are ALLOWING it to go on. There have been a few confrontational meetings between MOM and major hirers of these labourers. Basically the employers threaten to stop all work or instigate their workers to start riots. It can easily be done by just firing them, so in anger all the thousands of workers will riot. MOM wants the easy way out and just closes one eye.
This is why Low Thia Kiang has a perfectly valid point about abolishing the foreign worker levy and implementing greater controls over the ratio of foreigners to Singaporeans. Honestly, do most of us really mind if hardworking construction workers, cleaners or domestic helpers are employed in Singapore? I for one do not. WE need these people. The entire Economic Strategies Committee proposal to reduce our “reliance” on foreign labour is disingenuous and inacurate. Singaporeans are complaining about the so called Foreign TALENTS that gain entry level into mid level jobs in Singapore without any unique skills and even a job offer here. Many developed countries only allow companies to employ a foreigner after they can prove that they could not find a single local candidate for that position.
Most foreign professionals and semi-professionals only impose a $50 monthly levy (soon to be $100) on their company. This is much less than the levies that run into hundreds of dollars for work permit holders such as construction workers. How is raising the levies for these already low wage workers supposed to help productivity I wonder? Will university and polytechnic educated Singaporeans jump at the chance to earn $800 and work in the scorching sun all day? No. So the levy raise is not really helping anyone.
Back to my main point: Bangladeshi construction workers and domestic workers will be severely affected by the raised levies I’m sure. Their salaries will go down as employers (many of whom are self serving) spend more on the levies. MP Low has made a great point in parliament that could actually help the workers who are in the unenviable position expressed in this article. Reducing the ratio would force companies to improve productivity by buying more machines and hiring higher skilled locals and foreign workers who could in turn get higher more humane salaries. I would think this runs in perfect parallel with the government’s aim for local workers to improve their skills thought SPUR and their WSQ.
The MP’s that are parroting their leaders by insisting the levy hike is without flaws should be ashamed of themselves and put some genuine thought into this. I always struggle to figure out the counter-arguments they manage to concoct in the spirit of discrediting the opposition. Governments should make life better for their people, and whoever is lucky (and qualified) enough to immigrate to that country for work, not just looking out for their own interests at the expense of the rice bowls of locals and foreigners alike.