Baseless claim about non-payment?

We refer to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) reply “Baseless claim about non-payment of foreign worker salaries” (Straits Times Forum, Aug 29) to Mr Alex Au’s letter “Salary non-payment a big issue for migrant workers” (Straits Times Forum, Aug 25).

Only 0.5% of workers complain?

It states that “Last year, the ministry received about 3,000 salary claims involving foreign workers. This is less than 0.5 per cent of work permit holders here.

90% satisfied working here?

Independent research companies, using professionally accepted methodologies, have corroborated our view that migrant workers feel they are generally well treated here. Interim findings of a survey conducted by Nexus Link showed that 90 per cent of foreign workers are satisfied working here.

MOM’s 3,000 complaints vs Alex Au’s 130,000 foreign workers?

We are therefore curious as to how Mr Au could make the sweeping statement that around 130,000 foreign workers may be either partially or not paid salaries at all. We trust he realises that it is not appropriate to listen only to the employees’ side of the story to bolster his claim of widespread non-payment of salaries.”

– This reply is in stark contrast to what Mr Alex Au said – “A recent TWC2 survey found that about one in three workers is either paid less than what is due him or not paid at all. We estimate this affects about 130,000 foreign workers”.

Make sense or not?

In our view, relying on the statistics of how many complaints are received (“0.5% of work permit holders”) may not be appropriate, because most aggrieved workers may not complain, for fear of antagonising their employers, or they may not know as to how to lodge a complaint or even have the time (foreign workers can’t take time off from their work hours) to go to the MOM.

Relying on independent research companies to show “that 90 per cent of foreign workers are satisfied working here” may also be inappropriate, because the issue here is about short, delayed on non-payment, and not about “migrant workers feel they are generally well treated here”.

If you are a foreign worker, and a researcher appointed by the MOM comes to your work place to interview you – how likely are you to say that you are unhappy with the way your employer treats you?

Employers facing financial difficulties?

As to “For the majority of substantiated claims that the employer is in a position to pay, MOM has ensured that the foreign workers receive their claims in full.

If the employer is facing financial difficulties and cannot pay, foreign workers may choose to seek adjudication with MOM, or settle the claim through conciliation. Some workers have chosen the latter, because they were aware their employers were just not able to make full payment.

At no point is the worker pressured into accepting a settlement. It is unbecoming of Mr Au to cast aspersions on MOM officers who work tirelessly to help all employees, including foreign workers, resolve their salary claims.”

Common sense lah?

– Does it not in a sense “collaborate” with what Mr Alex Au said – “In nearly all instances we encounter, workers tell TWC2 that MOM makes little effort to obtain full settlement. Workers feel pressured to accept a fraction of what they are owed”?

Since the MOM allows “If the employer is facing financial difficulties and cannot pay” – and “foreign workers may choose to seek adjudication with MOM, or settle the claim through conciliation. Some workers have chosen the latter, because they were aware their employers were just not able to make full payment” – this may sound kind of ludicrous as how would a worker be “aware their employers were just not able to make full payment”?

If this is not “worker pressured into accepting a settlement” – What is?

Protecting workers’ rights?

With regard to “MOM is and remains committed to protecting and upholding all workers’ rights and interests. This includes allowing victimised workers to change employers and continue working in Singapore while their cases are being investigated.”

Can or cannot change jobs?

– It is again in stark contrast to what Mr Alex Au said – “Their negotiating position is undermined by MOM policy that prohibits them from looking for new jobs.

Remaining jobless makes it very hard for workers to hold out and assert their right to salary arrears”.

So, can the MOM tell us what percentage of aggrieved workers actually found “new jobs” almost immediately after becoming jobless because they complained?

Payslips so difficult?

In respect of “We also earlier announced the mandatory issuance of itemised payslips within two years.”

– Since this is obviously a significant stumbling block to the problem, because without a payslip – how does the MOM figure out which are “substantiated claims”?

So, why does it take 2 years to require such a simple thing as issuing a payslip?

In this connection, what Mr Alex Au said was “Failure to make detailed itemised payslips and payment through banks mandatory leaves many unable to prove that they have not been paid correctly”.

Can request pay through bank?

As to “Employers of work permit holders are already required to pay their workers’ salaries through direct transfers into their bank accounts if workers request it.”

– How would most workers know that they can request for it? And if the employer does not accede to their request – what is the worker expected to do? Complain to the MOM? Is this a joke or what?

Most employers not prosecuted?

With regard to Mr Alex Au’s “Moreover, in the majority of the cases that come to us, the delinquent employers are not reported to have been prosecuted.

Unless MOM uses the threat of prosecution from the moment workers complain, employers do not feel any need to settle in full.

Security bond – MOM keep $3,000, worker gets only $2,000?

One of the conditions of the $5,000 security bond is that employers must pay salaries on time.

Even when MOM threatens to forfeit the bond, MOM policy is to obtain only about $2,000 of it to pay the affected worker, despite him being owed $7,000 or $10,000. Why not give all $5,000 to the worker?

The present framework that sees small partial settlements as “success” creates a moral hazard: It rewards breach of contract and dishonesty, and lets employers off the hook when they break the law”

MOM’s “silence is golden”?

– Why is it that the MOM’s reply is silent on this point?

Finally, can the MOM tell us what percentage of employers with “substantiated claims” were prosecuted, instead of settled through “conciliation” or “adjudication”?

Who do you believe?

At the end of the day, if its a matter of who do you believe more – the MOM or Mr Alex Au?

– Given the MOM’s dismal consistent record of non-transparency and accountability such as – no breakdown of the workforce, employment change, long-term unemployed statistics, etc, into Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs), focusing the narrative on gross wages of full-time resident workers including employer CPF contribution instead of all Singaporean workers (full-time and part-time) excluding employer CPF contribution, etc – We leave it to you, the reader to decide for yourself.

S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian