Connect with us

Commentaries

Singapore's Kafala System

Published

11 years ago

on

By Masked Crusader
Qatar is facing intense heat from FIFA, the UK as well as several international human rights’ organizations for the widespread reports of migrant worker abuses by contractors working feverishly on the construction of stadia, hotels and infrastructure for the football World Cup to be held there in 2022. Shockingly, 400 labourers from Nepal and another 700 from India have already died working on these projects since the World Cup was awarded to Qatar in 2012. It is estimated that the death toll will reach an astonishing 4000 by the time the opening game kicks off in 2022. The International Labour Organisation has issued a stern rebuke to Qatar and has requested remedial measures be put in place as a matter of priority.
As well as Qatar, several Arab Gulf States adopt the kafala system in which an employer sponsors migrant labourers by applying for visas and work permits and consequently assumes responsibility for them economically and legally for the duration of their contract. This gives employers a feeling of “ownership” over the labourers and is the root of all manner of abuse including the confiscation of passports, non-payment or withholding of salaries, restriction of movement, inhumane work conditions, and unreasonable work demands. Many workers claim that contracts signed in their home countries are torn up when they land in Qatar. There is also little legal recourse for these vulnerable workers who are at the mercy of the employers.
The kafala system essentially makes the workers modern day slaves as they are unable to change employers, or in some cases, even terminate their contract and return home. Workers are beholden to their contracted employer who may wield unethical power over them particularly as the workers would have assumed debts from high agency fees or commissions paid to secure employment in Qatar.
Significantly, the kafala system is structured to ensure that workers do not apply for other jobs while in Qatar and that employers avoid competing domestically for these migrant workers. This reduces, or preserves, the market price of migrant labour and eliminates any leverage the workers may have in improving the terms of their employment.
Reading about the kafala system, one wonders if it is in fact describing the Singapore system of managing migrant workers. In addition to the components of the kafala system, the Singapore government also requires bonds be placed by employers for their migrant workers to ensure that the employers are penalized for their offenses or the delinquent deeds of their employees. This, obviously, causes nervous employers to shorten and tighten the leash on workers to a stranglehold.
Whilst parents in Singapore are not legally liable for the actions of their own children, they are for the behaviour of their adult maids. Domestic workers routinely have their passports withheld, are subjected to humiliating mandatory pregnancy tests and have little to no privacy whilst being on call 24/7 as the award-winning local film, Ilo Ilo, illustrates.
Singapore received a most unflattering coverage in the U.S. 2013 Trafficking in Persons report (TIP) in which it was ranked as a Tier 2 country, which are:

“Countries whose governments do not fully comply with the (U.S.) Trafficking Victims Protection Act minimum standards, but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with those standards.”

Qatar, like Singapore, is also ranked as a Tier 2 country. In fact, the reports of these two countries appear to be facsimiles of each other—except with respect to the trafficking of sex workers, which is a blemish Qatar does not share with Singapore.
In November 2012, the Singapore government made amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) to strengthen protections for the more than one million foreign workers by increasing both administrative and judicial penalties against errant employers as well as by giving increased powers to the Ministry of Manpower in investigating complaints.
The Acting Minister of Manpower, Tan Chuan-Jin, said then in parliament:

“… we have found some (employers) declaring higher salaries than they are actually paying their foreign workers, asking foreign workers to foot their own levies and insurance premiums, or contributing CPF to locals that do not really exist or are not actively in their employment in order to meet the required ratio of local to foreign workers, and submitting forged certificates to qualify for skilled work passes.”

It is uncertain why the Ministry waited till 2012 to take such measures when local NGOs have reported the same malpractices for at least a decade prior to it. In any case, these measures it would appear have been ineffectual based on conviction rates. The 2013 TIP report states:

“The (Singapore) government investigated more than 400 leads, yet it substantiated only 21 trafficking cases during the year; the lack of a law defining trafficking in accordance with international standards and inadequate capacity in interviewing victims thwarted law enforcement successes and left many victims without access to full government protections, including work permits or change of employer.”

All of the above-mentioned trafficking cases related to trafficking of sex workers. Sadly, the report adds:

“The government has never prosecuted or convicted a labour trafficking offender.”

Mr Tan in concluding his speech made the following grandiose statement:

“This Bill also seeks to stem the worst abuses against foreign workers. This is in keeping with our values as a society, that we believe all our workers should be treated fairly, decently and with respect regardless of their nationality.”

It is unclear if these values he speaks off are new ones to be adopted as we move forward because the situation with respect to migrant workers in Singapore is as dire now as it has been for a very long time. In some cases, the pro-employer government has been complicit in creating the current situation through a variety of means ranging from ignorance, inaction, and in some cases even creating new regulations specifically to allow abusive and unsafe practices to continue and so that employers cannot be prosecuted.
Notably missing from the reforms announced by Mr Tan is a requirement for business owners to issue payslips to workers. In a separate speech in parliament last year, he explained that making such a practice mandatory would prove to be too onerous for small businesses and increase administrative costs. NGOs complain that migrant workers are often unable to provide proof during wage disputes because their companies do not issue payslips.
As one of the largest users of migrant labourers are Government-Linked Companies, the government arguably stands to benefit most from exploiting them, ensuring the costs of hiring labourers remains low, and keeping welfare expenses to the minimum. The GLCs, to ensure that they are not directly involved in the sticky business of employing and being liable for these labourers generally choose to maintain a sufficient distance by subcontracting labour services to smaller companies. These small companies, squeezed from every direction, ultimately are the main stooges in the abuse of migrant workers.
The GLCs, in the meanwhile, claim ignorance and express shock in the face of accusations as such abuses are completely contrary to their corporate values.
Meanwhile, multinational companies such as Apple, Nike, and Adidas who also subcontract work to companies are routinely taken to task and are held culpable for abuses by their subcontractors even in faraway jurisdictions such as China, Pakistan and Bangladesh. To their credit, most of these companies acknowledge their responsibilities and attempt to ensure that contractors fulfil standards far more onerous than that mandated in these countries in order to be awarded manufacturing and service contracts.
The Singapore government also profits from the employment of migrant workers by charging a levy of between $250 and $750 per worker per month. This amounts to an estimated total revenue of around $4 billion a year—the entire national budget surplus for 2014.
The ever increasing levies are charged on the pretext of using cost as a deterrent to the employment of foreign labourers, the protection of local workers, and the need to improve productivity. However, the government contradicts itself by stating that in many cases foreign labour is a necessity in Singapore. Either way, it makes $4 billion a year on the backs of foreign workers with very little of it going to the worker in terms of welfare and support services or gratuities. It would be hard, therefore to dispute those who liken this practice to the methods of shameful middlemen in another unsavoury trade.
It has recently come to light that 15 Bangladeshi workers employed by Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council were accommodated in a 5-room HDB flat—a clear violation of HDB regulations. Here is video evidence of this:

HDB owners who sublet their flats are required to register the names of all tenants with the HDB which sets strict limits on the number of tenants in a flat. Although the Town Council and HDB will deny knowledge of this incident, it is clearly in their interests for workers working in the district to live nearby rather than dormitories as these workers are often at the beck and call of the Town Council management.
Presumably the management has on its records the addresses and contact numbers of its workers and yet was unable to detect this illegal activity. It is unlikely that this is an example of an isolated incident involving one transgressing employer. It would be interesting to see what occurs as a result of this evidence being made available, how vigorously the issue is pursued, and which parties are ultimately held responsible.
Perhaps most lamentable are regulations formulated with wanton disregard for the health, safety, well-being, and dignity of foreign workers. In response to complaints by the public to the unsafe practice of herding labourers in the back of open trucks meant for moving cargo, the government inexplicably legalized the practise by issuing guidelines on how many workers may be transported in this way.
overladen lorry
Despite the protestations of NGOs such as Transient Workers Count Too and a trail of countless number of deaths and injuries suffered in auto accidents, this practise—unparalleled in any other first world country—continues. It is a clear indictment against the government and businesses that the safety of foreign workers is so blatantly compromised for commercial interests.
The Land Transport Authority, which mandates that all passengers in a car must wear seat-belts, ironically, sanctions the transportation of workers in lorries and maintains a web page dedicated to Safety Regulations For Lorries Carrying Workers. Many more photos of labourers transported in the back of trucks in unsafe conditions can be found here and here. Despite many of these photos showing the license plates of lorries, the authorities seem oblivious to the violations and seem to make it a habit not to be vigilant during rush hour when workers are being transported between dormitories and work sites.
Unlike Qatar, the Singapore government is fortunate the country is not hosting the World Cup or Olympics. It is, therefore, business as usual as Singapore operates on the periphery of the radar—relatively speaking—of international human rights organisations whose sights are focused currently on Qatar and the Arab Gulf States.
As long as the Singapore government has an interest in exploiting foreign labourers, it is unlikely that workers in Singapore will “be treated fairly, decently and with respect regardless of their nationality”.
This article was first published at http://maskedcrusader.blogspot.sg/
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending