TWC2 slams Singapore govt “policy paralysis” on migrant worker abuses, pushes major reforms

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) has renewed calls for major reforms to Singapore’s migrant labour system, arguing that longstanding structural problems continue to leave workers vulnerable to exploitation despite the country’s growing dependence on foreign manpower.

In a forum letter published on 21 May 2026, the labour advocacy group responded to a commentary by The Straits Times senior columnist Tan Dawn Wei, who questioned why Singapore continued tolerating labour conditions for migrant workers that citizens themselves would reject.

TWC2 described the situation as one of “policy paralysis”, while acknowledging that the issues surrounding migrant workers were “complicated and thorny”.

The organisation said practical reforms had long been available and could significantly reduce abuses if implemented decisively by the authorities.

The group’s proposals centred on stronger state intervention, proactive enforcement by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), reduced dependence on exploitative recruitment systems and improved mobility for workers seeking new employment.

Calls for stronger enforcement

TWC2 executive director Ethan Guo said migrant workers remained trapped in a system where they feared losing their jobs or being repatriated if they complained about mistreatment.

Guo argued that enforcement mechanisms relied too heavily on workers filing complaints themselves, despite the risks they faced in doing so.

“We cannot afford a system that waits for workers to raise complaints,” he said.

Instead, TWC2 called for MOM to conduct proactive audits of salary payments and workplace violations rather than relying primarily on worker complaints.

The group also urged the ministry to publicise administrative penalties imposed on offending employers to strengthen deterrence.

“The Ministry of Manpower needs to proactively audit salary payments and other law violations, and publicise cases where employers are penalised administratively, for deterrent effect,” Guo said.

TWC2 said many workers who filed complaints were dismissed soon afterwards, even though they were technically allowed to seek new employment in Singapore.

According to the organisation, the current hiring structure often discouraged employers from recruiting workers already in Singapore because overseas recruitment generated profits for agents and intermediaries.

“The braver workers who have filed complaints almost always get fired,” Guo said.

Transfer system under scrutiny

TWC2 proposed that MOM should prioritise approval of work permit transfers involving workers already in Singapore before allowing employers to hire new workers from abroad.

The organisation argued that such a move would both protect workers and help Singapore retain experienced labour.

“In theory, nearly all get a chance to seek new jobs,” Guo said.

“In practice, employers may prefer to hire new workers from abroad because they are more submissive.”

Guo also criticised the widespread use of recruitment fees, saying many migrant workers effectively had to “buy their jobs” before arriving in Singapore.

“It is shocking that nearly all migrant workers have to buy their jobs, for buying is what recruitment fees amount to,” he said.

According to TWC2, recruitment intermediaries frequently demanded payments several times higher than legal limits in exchange for arranging transfer jobs or overseas placements.

The organisation warned that such financial arrangements distorted hiring incentives and encouraged employers to prioritise recruitment profits over worker suitability or skills.

“Employers may be incentivised to hire on the basis of profit from the fees, rather than select workers on the basis of skills and aptitude,” Guo said.

Centralised hiring proposal

As part of its reform proposals, TWC2 reiterated calls for a centralised and tightly regulated employment portal for all work permit jobs in Singapore.

Under the proposal, all work permit vacancies would have to be listed exclusively on the platform, while unlicensed agents would be barred from accessing the system.

TWC2 argued that a centralised portal could significantly reduce illegal fee demands and improve oversight of recruitment practices.

“With the portal located within Singapore jurisdiction, enforcement will be easier than the current cross-border ambiguity,” Guo said.

The organisation added that safeguards could be built into the portal to prevent workers being asked for payments in exchange for jobs.

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by TWC2 (@twc2sg)

Debate reignited by commentary

The latest exchange followed a commentary by Tan Dawn Wei examining Singapore’s increasing reliance on migrant labour amid a massive infrastructure expansion programme.

In the article titled “S’pore depends on migrant workers. Why do we accept conditions we would never tolerate ourselves?”, Tan described Singapore as being in the midst of an infrastructure “supercycle”.

Tan highlighted that Singapore’s simultaneous mega-construction boom—spanning MRT lines, HDB estates, Changi Airport Terminal 5 and Tuas Port—has pushed annual construction demand to S$47–S$53 billion and is only possible because of heavy reliance on about 1.22 million migrant Work Permit holders, roughly half the citizen and PR workforce.

She argued that migrant workers were no longer peripheral to the economy but central to Singapore’s development model.

Yet despite this reliance, she wrote that migrant workers continued to exist as “a permanently transient class existing at the edges of society”.

Structural concerns highlighted

Tan also pointed to concerns raised during Singapore’s latest United Nations human rights review in Geneva.

On 12 May, TWC2 and the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) submitted a joint report outlining structural problems affecting migrant workers.

The report highlighted issues including recruitment debt, excessive overtime, restrictions on job mobility and insufficient protection for injured workers.

Tan argued that many of these problems had persisted for years despite repeated discussions about reform.

She wrote that the Covid-19 pandemic exposed severe dormitory conditions and triggered public debate about improving migrant worker welfare.

However, she argued Singapore ultimately “doubled down on the same labour model” by continuing to rely heavily on imported labour rather than redesigning work systems fundamentally.

The commentary also scrutinised Singapore’s foreign worker levy system.

Originally introduced as a mechanism to regulate labour inflows, the levy has become a major source of state revenue.

Tan noted that levy collections exceeded S$6 billion in 2024 and were projected to rise further.

Although officially framed as a productivity tool, she argued the system could incentivise employers to maximise labour extraction because companies continued paying fixed levies regardless of output.

Tan further highlighted what she described as a widening disparity in labour protections between migrant workers and professionals or citizens.

She noted that many local workers increasingly benefited from workplace flexibility, mental health protections and stronger safeguards, while migrant workers remained heavily dependent on employers for housing, salaries and immigration status.

“If conflicts arise, many fear repatriation before disputes are properly resolved,” she wrote.

Tan also argued that Singapore’s labour system reinforced social and emotional separation by housing workers in remote dormitories and keeping them largely detached from broader society.

She warned that continued dependence on cheap labour could suppress innovation by reducing incentives for mechanisation and productivity improvements.

The commentary proposed reforms including safer living conditions, improved transport standards, easier job mobility and stronger grievance mechanisms.

Tan concluded by questioning whether a country that prided itself on being “fair, rational and exceptionally well governed” could continue accepting labour conditions that many citizens themselves would consider unacceptable.