Editorial
The ASEAN countries plan to adopt a charter at their thirteenth summit in Singapore in November. The Public Affairs Office of the ASEAN Secretariat describes the organisation’s vision of why it needs a charter:
Currently, ASEAN is a loosely-organised regional body. However, ASEAN is moving towards being a more rules-based organisation in order to better meet the challenges posed by regional integration, the expansion of its external linkages and rapid globalisation, and in so doing, remain an effective player on the international stage. In this context, the ASEAN Charter will set the framework and lay the legal foundation for ASEAN to restructure its existing mechanisms and improve its decision-making process to enhance efficiency and ensure prompt implementation of all ASEAN agreements and decisions. The Charter will also provide ASEAN with a legal personality.
The vision expressed is of a machine that functions better within a challenging international environment. It is not centred on the rights and status of citizens, but, in the proposal for the creation of an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, there might be some potential for progress on these matters, providing it is not simply an inter-governmental apparatus without any autonomy or input from non-governmental bodies.
Transient Workers Count Too has specific goals; we are not here to get into a wide ranging discussion of ASEAN or its charter, but to the extent that they touch on the position of migrant workers, we are bound to take an interest as a society. Our region is one that contains ‘sender’ countries from which many migrant workers go to work abroad (Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar), receiver countries that bring in migrant workers (Singapore, Brunei) and countries that play both roles (Malaysia, Thailand). ASEAN ought to take a collective interest in the status of these workers and indeed, in January this year, it adopted ‘The ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers’.
It does not cover all the issues that we think it should, but, if converted into policy in the ASEAN states, the declaration would mean quite a step forward for tens of millions of people. Unfortunately, it is non-binding, which leaves signatory governments free to look good on paper but take no action.
Will that change if an effective ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism is created? It ought to. The declaration on migrant workers should be a document that is produced in evidence before the region’s governments and used as a lever for change, despite its non-binding status. An acid test of any new human rights mechanism should be how seriously it pursues the goal of summoning governments to make good on what they have said they wish to promote for migrant workers.
Whatever happens, a decisive role in producing change will be a concerned citizenry that speaks up and that is why advocacy remains a central part of TWC2’s work.
Message from John
Earlier this year, after the Philippines government announced that it was raising the minimum wage for its workers abroad to US$400 per month (S$600), several journalists ‘phoned me with questions. In passing, I said to one of them, ‘Of course, there are some employers who already pay their domestic workers more than this; this will be a non-issue to them.’
The caller sounded sceptical, so I said that I thought they were generally fairly well-off and hadn’t paid over this amount when their domestic workers started with them, but that, once the workers had shown that they worked well, the employers had raised their pay to the $500 - $700 a month range – and I wasn’t just talking about expats, but Singaporeans.
‘Could you arrange for me to talk to some of those employers?’ asked my caller.
‘I think so’, I said confidently. ‘Let me get back to you on this.’
Considering that TWC2’s work is furthered by a good relationship with the media, I try to respond to requests as fully as possible, and like to think that I make a reasonable job of it, but on this occasion, I had to admit defeat.
I called a number of people who I thought paid their workers more than the new Philippines minimum, and in most cases, my guess was right: either they paid over S$600, or they paid less but effectively topped up the amount through occasional extra payments for hard work - for big family get togethers or mah jong sessions, for example.
Then I asked whether they would be willing to speak to a journalist and be quoted, and without exception, the answer was ‘no’.
I could not probe very deeply into why this was, but from what these employers said, it appears that some thought that it could appear immodest, and some thought that it would invite criticism from people they knew.
The anticipated criticism was on two lines. One would be that the employer who paid such an amount was ‘spoiling the market’; the other would be that she was ‘spoiling the worker’.
I’ve heard similar arguments before: giving a regular day off, not making a worker labour for 15 hours and upwards and allowing her to keep hong baos given by guests are all examples of behaviour held to ‘spoil’ workers in some quarters, as if permitting her anything better than unremitting toil for minimal pay would ruin her character. It is safe to assume that such people would be the first to protest if they were expected to live under such conditions. I’m sure they would greet a pay rise from their own employers as a deserved reward, rather than a threat to their own moral character.
Of course, it is not really concern for the workers’ wellbeing that motivates such remarks, but the protection of some employers’ current advantages: the ‘spoilt’ worker might expect the same standard of treatment by future employers, and workers who knew of her employment conditions might want the same. And so, the argument about ‘spoiling the worker’ is pretty much the same as that about ‘spoiling the market’ after all.
There is something rather strange about people wanting to avoid being seen to do something good. It is to do with peer pressure – there is a fear that friends and relatives will be critical of breaches of employer solidarity in defence of low pay and long hours for their workers.
I do wish that there would be more willingness on the part of employers who do pay their workers significantly more than the current ‘going rate’ to break ranks and talk positively about the better pay and conditions they give their domestic workers. It would set a positive example and be a step towards new norms for the treatment of domestic workers.
Activities
6th August: The showing of ‘Ghosts’ reported in the previous newsletter brought in $337.52 to TWC2 funds as our share of ticket sales. A third share of ticket sales plus a collection produced a donation of $841.52 for the Morecambe Bay Victims Fund. It goes to help the families of the Chinese migrant workers who were drowned in the incident.
12th August: The two events that day went off well. The graduation celebration for our second group of helpline volunteers included the presentation of a certificate to each of those who had completed the training course successfully. They were thanked for the commitment they had shown in undertaking the course and being ready to help staff this important service.
A group of our veteran helpline workers came along to take part in the celebration.
They brought some delicious food with them to add to our enjoyment, so we all ended up quite full! Nothing went to waste: what was left was sent over to the HOME women’s shelter, and the women sent back a cheerful ‘Thank-you’ card.
We had a stand at Hello Asia!’s second anniversary celebration. Hundreds of leaflets advertising the helpline were distributed and some new members were signed up. Thanks to John Devasahayam and family, Veness, Debbie, Sha and Noor for coming along on a scorching hot day and helping to get helpline information more widely distributed.
1st September: Venness spoke for TWC2 as one of a panel of speakers at a workshop on displaced persons and migrants organised by the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary. Participants came from Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam and Australia, as well as Singapore.
Migrant Forum in Asia
TWC2 has been provisionally accepted as a member of Migrant Forum in Asia. This is an extensive network of organisations that work on migrant worker issues. Its central office is in Manila.
There are two benefits that the Executive Committee thinks can flow from participation in a network which functions throughout the wider region.
Many of the same issues crop up in different countries, and it makes sense to exchange information on how organisations and societies tackle them, so that we can learn from each others’ experiences, strong points and mistakes, as well as compare notes on how governments explain their practices.
It is also true that some of the problems that individual migrant workers face are not limited to one national state; most notably, the debt burden that workers who come to Singapore bear when they start their jobs here is mainly built up in the process of recruitment before they set foot here. A determined effort to reduce that burden will take co-operation on a country to country and regional basis.
Safety on the Roads
An accident in which one Indian worker was killed recently drew public attention once again to the problem of the transportation of foreign workers in the back of trucks and lorries.
24-year old Solai Raj died after a car hit the lorry in which he was being carried, causing it to spin round and then overturn, spilling out the 13 workers on board. The accident occurred on the Pan-Island Expressway during the morning rush hour on Thursday, 23rd August, when the men were being carried to the construction site where they were due to work that day.
Reporting the tragedy, Carolyn Quek noted:
‘This is not the first time workers sitting in the back of lorries have been hurt: Since 2001, 25 foreign workers have been killed or injured in similar accidents.
After two workers died within a week of each other this way in May last year, a call went out for more to be done to make this mode of transport safer.
The Land Transport Authority set a limit in 2003 on the number of workers allowed in the backs of pickups and lorries, by requiring each one to have at least 0.372 sq m of space.’
TWC2 has commented to the media on this issue before, and on one occasion, Braema personally witnessed workers perched on an overloaded lorry while driving and reported it to the police.
We have heard numerous comments from members of the public about the conditions in which foreign workers often travel to and from work. It is not only a matter of safety; many people feel sorry for men who are exposed to the elements with little protection against either hot sun or pouring rain. It is a common sight, when it rains during a rush hour, to see workers in the back of a truck trying to keep dry under tarpaulin or plastic sheets – obviously in vain.
When it comes to safety, existing arrangements are clearly inadequate.
Vehicles carrying workers are required to observe a 60 kilometres an hour speed limit, but even an impact at half or a third of that speed could result in serious injury or death for passengers who are not secured by seatbelts and whose backs generally rest against hard metal edges.
The space requirement determines how many workers can legally be carried. The number is generally indicated in an oval sign to the right side of a truck’s tail flap. This makes it relatively easy to see when the number is exceeded. Nevertheless, as members may have noted, some trucks that are legally in compliance with the number indicated on them appear to be crowded. In addition, the space allowance makes little difference to the level of safety in a truck when workers can be thrown about or ejected in a crash or by a sudden stop.
Under LTA rules, passengers are supposed to be seated in such a way that they should not easily fall off vehicles and they should not be seated more than 3.2 metres off the ground. Nevertheless, all too often, workers can be seen perched on top of loads being carried by vehicles, such as bamboo poles used for scaffolding.
Efforts have been made to enforce these rules by the imposition of fines and penalties, but the problem is that the rules as they stand do not adequately ensure the safety of men being carried and attempts to make a flawed system work are bound to fall short of their intended goals: transporting people in the open backs of lorries and trucks, without proper seating or seat belts and exposed to the elements, is inherently a risk to their health and safety – whether they be foreign workers or National Servicemen.
The Executive Committee believes that Singapore should ban the transport of people in the back of lorries or trucks. Instead, workers should be conveyed to and from work by buses or minivans hired or bought for the purpose and equipped with safety belts. We realize that this will impose additional costs upon contractors, but consider that the toll in lost lives and injuries under existing arrangements could be significantly reduced by this means and that this consideration should come uppermost. It should be recognised that the long term savings by companies on costs caused by accidents, including those due to the death or injury of workers, will defray these expenses somewhat. It will also close an issue that has disturbed many people, particularly when an accident has occurred.
We propose that the way to proceed on this issue would be for the government, through the Land Transport Authority, to declare that this measure is to be introduced and to set a target date for full compliance with it that will give contractors adequate time to make the arrangements necessary.
How Many?
Several statistics have appeared recently that help to update our information on the number of foreign workers present in Singapore.
In September, the Department of Statistics reported that, as of June 2007, the population of Singapore was 4,680,600, of whom 3,675,100 were classified as Singapore residents (citizens and permanent residents). The difference between the two figures is accounted for by foreign workers, students and professionals who do not have permanent resident status.
In ‘Medical cover a must for foreign workers’, Lee Hui Chieh (‘Straits Times’, 14/9/2007) referred to the presence of 645,000 foreigners on work permits and 110,000 on S-passes. As the resident workforce is 1,880,800 (Department of Statistics, 2006), this means that roughly two out of every seven workers legally employed in Singapore is a work permit or S-pass holder.
Other significant statistics for TWC2’s concerns in the latest figures were those for dependents in Singapore’s population. For every 100 residents in the 15-64 age group, there were 26 dependent children and 11.9 elderly people. Providing for their needs is meant to provide the basic rationale for current policies on the employment of foreign domestic workers.
Helpline Highlights
In this issue, we look into a common problem faced workers, this time on fake work permits.
The Case
A Mandarin-speaking caller who was hired as a mechanic in Singapore called TWC2 Helpline. The helpliner on duty, unable to converse in Mandarin, referred him to another helpliner who could. The caller shared that the agent in his home country forged his educational certificates, and so he was hired on a work pass that was void. This was later found out by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). The Ministry issued him a temporary work permit while investigating his case.
During this time, he has been living on his savings. His former employers has also been kind enough to support him by letting him stay with them and gave him some pocket money. He has also been unsuccessful in obtaining a job through the Temporary Job Scheme (TJS). He expressed that he is under immense stress as he has been without an income while waiting for the case to be investigated. He is also highly frustrated because there does not seem to be any development made on his case.
TWC2 Case Manager contacted an Investigating Officer at the Foreign Manpower Management Division (FMMD) to enquire about his case. The officer conveyed that because of the circumstances he was caught in, the caller is a defendant in a labour scam case which they are still investigating. TWC2 Case Manager wanted to know what the options are for the caller and was advised that he be patient and continue to seek employment through the Temporary Job Scheme to relief him of his financial difficulties while waiting for a resolution in his case. The caller had also asked TWC2 to help pass his number to the Investigating Officer so that the officer could call him directly should there be any developments on his case.
TWC2 Case Manager monitored the mental and physical well-being of the caller on a regular basis as he seemed really distressed by his situation. The Case Manager also spoke to his former employer who said that he was a good worker and that it was most unfortunate that he was implicated in the alleged labour scam without his knowledge. The employer did not know that his educational certificates were fake as they employed him through an agent.
His case was eventually closed by MOM one month after TWC2 made contact with the Investigating Officer. The caller was repatriated without being charged and his former employer paid for his ticket home.
Pointers: It is crucial that employers verify the educational certificates of workers before hiring them. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) the penalties for obtaining work passes through obscure means carry jail terms.
Migrant workers sometimes fall victim to labour scams because they are not in the know of the laws of the countries of destination and more than often trust their agents and leave the arrangements wholly to their agents.
It is difficult to verify if the worker himself/herself is guilty of participating in such scams knowingly. In this case, TWC2 was obliged to counsel and provide support to the caller because he was in a distressed state through having no means to support himself while waiting for his case to be resolved by MOM. TWC2 sees its role in such cases as the liaison party between the caller and MOM. This is because such callers find difficulty in communicating with the Investigating Officer directly: they sometimes do not have more direct access to them. More importantly, TWC2 acts as a friendly listening ear to listen to the caller’s problem and provides useful information on how he can access free food and accommodation and other options opened to him based on the facts fed by the caller and the Investigating Officer to relief the caller of some of the stress through such a difficult time.
TWC2’s helpline runs from Mondays to Saturdays from 10am-10pm. Please call us at 1800888-1515 for queries.
