Yawning Bread. 5
December 2008
Muddy
Singapore swallows China workers
Wanting to press for a resolution of his dispute with his employer,
Xue Hanming, a construction worker originally from Jiangsu, China,
called the Ministry of Manpower on 3 December 2008. "Ms Foo [Kim
Hui] told me to go down to the ministry the next day," he told
me.
On the
4th, he arrived and asked the reception clerk to inform Ms Foo of
his presence. He was asked to sit in the waiting area.
After a
long while with no sign of Foo, Xue began to wonder if something
else was up. Fresh in his mind was the case of a fellow worker, Xue
Chengming (no relation), who had been seized by security agents
hired by their employer on 2 Dec. More on Xue Chengming's seizure
below.
Fearing
a similar fate, Xue decided to leave. Moments after stepping out,
he saw his manager and a couple of security guards enter the
Manpower ministry building. It was a near miss.
The
coincidences scream at you. Who would have alerted the employer
that Xue Hanming was in the ministry building? Why did Foo never
come down to meet someone with whom she herself had asked to come
to the ministry, giving the impression that she was prepared to
discuss the matter with the complainant? Are government offices
meant to be places for resolving problems in good faith and
according to the law, or locations for entrapment?
But
let's start from the beginning.
* * * *
*
The two Xue were members of a larger group of workers -– a figure
of 32 was mentioned at some point in the interview -– who were in
dispute with their employer, Xuyi Building Engineering Co, a
"foreign company registered in Singapore" according to the records
at the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). Its
registration number is F 065765 K.
Xuyi is
a subcontractor at both the Marina Bay and Sentosa casino projects.
I am told that Xuyi is a subcontractor for multinational
construction company Ssangyong at these sites.
This was
not the first time that Xuyi faced unhappy workers. There was at
least one earlier batch who had lodged complaints against the
company -- a fact that the Ministry of Manpower acknowledged to Xue
and his colleagues. More on that batch's story in the box at
right.
Xue Hanming spoke on behalf of
five other men, whose names are in the photo caption below. Two of
them had been seized by the employer's security agents before the
interview and handed over to the Immigration and Checkpoints
Authority (ICA).
Not in photo (detained at
ICA):
Xue Chengming,
Chen Yuguang
Of these six men, three had been brought to Singapore in late 2007,
one in February 2008 and two, including Xue Hanming, in June
2008.
Before coming here, they had
signed employment contracts with a labour agency in China -– whom
they later discovered was set up by the spouse of the boss of
Singapore Xuyi -– which contained a paragraph on expected
remuneration. It is not an altogether clear clause, but it may be
common in China. Essentially, it says that the monthly salary will
be in the range of "S$1,250 to S$1,500 (subject to satisfactory
diligence)". It also specified that if they worked every day of a
month, they would get an extra S$1 per day, i.e. S$30 for a 30-day
month.
The clause in their employment contract
By end October, Xue Hanming and others were seriously unhappy about
not receiving their wages, formally lodging their complaints with
their company's management. Xue himself, following the company's
procedure, signed a form recording his grievance.
They even had difficulty at
that stage. Xue wanted the complaint form to say that he wanted
three months of salary arrears to be paid, but the supervisor or
manager insisted on rewriting it to say "Salary too little, not in
keeping with contract obligation". As you can imagine, the rewrite
would conceal the fact that the company had broken Singapore law by
not paying its workers on time; the rewrite cast5 it as a dispute
about interpretation of contractual terms.
In response, the company
produced a schedule listing what the men were owed. In Xue's case,
the schedule showed that his gross salary in June and July was over
S$1,400 monthly, but for August, September and October, his gross
decreased to S$1,300 and S$1,200.
It was similar for the others
in the batch.
Xue asked his management: "Is
the gross salary for the last three months lowered because I filed
a complaint and indicated I wanted to go back?"
He was not given much of an
answer. "It's like that," was what the company representative told
him.
Xue was prepared to accept the
slightly reduced amounts, but then the company produced a list of
deductions that whittled the gross salaries of August, September
and October down to a nett S$1,400 or so. For all three
months.
Others had it
worse,
"In my case," said Liu
Xiaoping, "my nett after deductions was just about S$500 for those
three months!" As was the case for Chen Yuguang -– one of two guys
currently in ICA detention.
The Zaobao article (undated) they saw (and
photocopied)
Now feeling cheated and quite irate, they also chanced upon a story
in the Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao which told of
another company being found in the wrong for holding back salaries
time-wise and through deductions. They further learnt that it was
illegal for companies not to pay overtime for working hours in
excess of 44 hours a week.
In their case, they had been
working every day, seven days a week. They often worked more than
80 hours a week. This only fueled their anger.
Ministry of Manpower – first meeting
On 6 November 2008, they filed
a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower, meeting the
above-mentioned Ms Foo and an officer whose surname in hanyu pinyin
was Chen.
Xue recounted that Chen waxed
lyrical with three allegorical tales.
"His first story was from Lu
Xun, about a patriot and revolutionary named Ah Q, who ended up
being executed, because he was illiterate. He signed a confession
without understanding it.
"I told him in response, 'The
era of Ah Q is over'." Refusing to be compared to an illiterate,
Xue pointed to the Zaobao article that had informed him of his
rights. The article had said that it is illegal for an employer to
make deductions from workers' pay. Even if an agreement had been
signed, the agreement would not be valid, Xue summarised the news
story.
Chen then spoke of the Yellow
River, saying that at its source the water is clear, but in the
lower reaches, it is yellow and muddy. "Frankly," noted Xue, "I
don't understand what he was trying to say. Was he saying that
Singapore is muddy?"
The Manpower official then
launched into his third allegory. "Rub two stones and you get a
spark," Xue recalled Chen saying. "But if you have an egg and a
stone.... You workers are the eggs."
"He said this in front of more
than 20 workers as well as company representative Tang Xuan,"
reported Xue. "And the meeting ended like that with no
conclusion."
Along the way, the workers
learnt that the same company had had a similar case just weeks
before. Twelve workers, originally from Henan, had meetings with
the Manpower ministry in October and were eventually sent home to
China in early November. Workers in that batch were upset about the
same things, and demanded to be released from their contracts and
repatriated. To close that case, the company deducted S$100 for
each month in the contract not worked. There were also deductions
for rent and utilities.
The current batch said that if
the company would use the same formula, they would accept the
settlement. But this time, the company refused, while the ministry
officials said, "We can't tell your employer what to pay
you."
Ministry of Manpower – second and third
meetings
The mediation session of 19
November was likewise fruitless. The employer stood firm, saying
something to this effect: These projects (the casinos) are
important projects, and if we let you quit whenever you want, we
cannot complete them in time.
The third meeting was not held
at the ministry, but at the worksite. Inside information told
Yawning Bread that the ministry was seeing more and more workers
showing up and making complaints, and they did not want the public
to see how many unhappy workers were descending on their
premises.
Held on 26 November, the
officer Chen circumlocuted again. He spoke of a wolf, goat and
grass wanting a boatman's services to cross a river. The problem
was that if the boatman did so, with the three of them ending up on
the same bank, they would devour each other. According to Xue, the
ministry saw itself as the boatman. The wolf represented what he
called third parties, (which could be the NGOs and outsiders
getting involved), the goat the company, and the workers the lowly
grass.
Soon after making this
nebulous comparison, Chen told the company's representative, Tang
Xuan, something to this effect: "Go and settle this properly. I
have to go now because I have an exam to take tomorrow."
And with that, the meeting
broke up.
Facing total intransigence on
the employer's part, the workers thought about hiring a lawyer, but
they had no money. Eventually they turned to an NGO, TWC2
(Transient Workers Count Too), who are now trying to help them
though they too have very limited influence and
resources.
The earlier batch that was
sent back to China remained dissatisfied about the terms they got
from their employer after they had voiced their
grievances.
Once back in Henan, they went
the original labour agent to seek redress. Not only did were they
stonewalled, a little while later, the agent sent hired thugs to
attack them. The men were beaten for two days.
(Yawning Bread does not know
whether this is the same agent that engaged the current Jiangsu
batch.)
Some of these men have become
demoralised and given up. Others however, have now contacted a
workers' rights NGO in Hong Kong who have a network of lawyers in
many parts of China. There is apparently a court case in
progress.
Snatching and
robbing
Along the way, some of the
workers in the group gave up and accepted the company's unfair and
miserly terms, and were repatriated –- or at least that was the
impression that Yawning Bread got. Six held on. But for these six,
things got nastier.
Tuesday, 2 December: Four or five security
agents hired by the employer, and led by the company representative
Tang Xuan, went to Xue Chengming's dormitory between 10 and 11 in
the morning and took him away under coercion. One co-worker
witnessed it and informed Xue Hanming. Shortly after, agents from
another security company took Chen Yuguang away from his dormitory,
which was at a different location. To Yawning Bread, the two
instances sound awfully like kidnapping.
Friends tried to call Xue Chengming on his two mobile phone
numbers, but these were switched off. Nor could friends reach Chen
Yuguang.
In the latter's case, the security agency which snatched him was
identified as a company with a name like "UTR". It was traced, and
TWC2 rang them to enquire if Chen was there. It was established
that he was. Yang Zhiqiang, Xue Hanming, Sha Najak from TWC2,
together with Stephanie Chok -– a Singaporean who helps workers in
her personal capacity -– went there and had a chance to speak with
him.
Chen told them that his handphone had been taken from him by the
security agents. One could assume that Xue Chengming too had been
relieved of his two phones by the security agents who seized
him.
Yawning Bread asked the men at the interview: Who owned the
phones? They said the men did. They were the personal property of
Xue and Chen. Well, dear readers, doesn't that amount to robbery?
And wouldn't keeping people incommunicado reinforce the
justification for calling this kidnap?
Wednesday, 3 December: Around
midnight Tuesday/Wednesday, police arrived at UTR -- almost surely
a result of a phone call from the employer Xuyi to the police --
and took Chen Yuguang to Central Police Station.
When Stephanie went there Wednesday afternoon, she also enquired
with the police about Xue Chengming. She told them that no one had
been able to contact him since the day before and people needed to
know his whereabouts and if he was safe. After some pleading, the
police checked their database and found him as being in custody at
Bedok Police Station. His status was that he had been "arrested"
for overstaying.
Were
they overstayers? This could not be so, because Xue Chengming, for
one, had a letter from the Ministry of Manpower setting an
appointment date of 4 December, and it was only 2 or 3 December
when the police took him in.
The way things are supposed to
work in Singapore is that when employees are in a dispute with en
employer, the Ministry of Manpower issues them with special passes
so that they can remain in Singapore until the issues have been
resolved. Having a letter from the Ministry of Manpower setting up
an appointment is a good sign that these people had been put on
special passes.
Moreover, a certain Nigel, an officer with the Ministry of
Manpower, would later confirm to TWC2 that these men had been
issued with special passes, but he also said that these passes were
handed over to the employer at the time of issuance. However, Nigel
added that the "passes had expired because the employer neglected
to renew them" according to an email Stephanie received from
TWC2.
This does not make any sense, so the above information may be
wrong. How can Manpower entrust the special passes to the employer
when the employer and workers are locked in a dispute? How can the
employer have the discretion to "renew" or not, the special passes,
when the employer would have an interest in throwing the workers
out of the country?
Whatever it is, it's quite evident that the men are not
overstayers -– and based on usual procedure, they would not be -–
but the police seemed to think he was. It is believed that like
Chen Yuguang's case, Xuyi called the police after their security
agents had seized Xue Chengming, with Xuyi telling the police that
Xue was an overstayer. The police appeared to be uninterested in
checking their information. Effectively, therefore, the
police were holding people unlawfully.
Thursday, 4 December: Xue Hanming had his near
miss with security agents in the lobby of the Ministry of Manpower,
as described at the start of this story.
4 – Nobody has a right to
treat you as his or her slave.
7 – The law is the same for
everyone; it should be applied in the same way to
all.
9 – Nobody has the right to
put you in prison unjustly or without good reason.
17 – You have a right to own
things and nobody has a right to take these from you without a good
reason.
23 – You have a right to work,
to be free to choose your work and to get a salary which allows you
to support your family.
24 – Each work day should not
be too long, since everyone has a right to rest and should be able
to take regular paid holidays.
(The above are the plain
language versions of the UDHR articles, transcribed by www.
U60sg.org)
Police said, "Don't
come."
That (Thursday) afternoon at
15:08h, Xue Hanming got a phone call from a police officer named
Ye, who told him that his employer had made a police report that he
(Xue Hanming) had gone missing. The employer must have called the
police right after they failed to nab him at the ministry
lobby.
"I am not missing," Xue
replied. "Shall I come to the police station? I would be happy to
do that, so that you can protect me from my employer.
"Mr Ye then said, 'No, no.
Don't come'," Xue recalled with a laugh.
The police officer then
suggested that Xue seek help from the Chinese embassy. Xue said he
had tried that but the embassy told him it was a domestic Singapore
matter.
Fly yourself home or be caned
Halfway through Yawning
Bread's interview, Xue Hanming received a call from Chen Yuguang on
his handphone. Chen and Xue Chengming had by then been dumped by
the police onto the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).
Chen was calling from an ICA landline (his cellphone having been
seized). He was under pressure from the ICA to find the money to
buy his air ticket home, and was appealing to his friends for
help.
Why was Chen Yuguang and Xue
Chengming looking to buy their own air tickets home? you should
ask. After all, the rule is that employers are responsible for
paying for that. All workers in Singapore know that.
My guess is that the ICA were
threatening them with imprisonment and caning -– these being the
penalties for illegal overstaying -– and pressuring him to accept
an injustice.
* * * * *
This story started with an abusive employer, but what got me
interested was the role played by the government departments. From
this, you can see that they were not at all interested in helping
workers. Mediation became story-telling in the hope of discouraging
the workers from pressing their claims. No mention is made of the
company being prosecuted for violating our Employment
Act.
The police held people for
overstaying without a shred of evidence that they were
overstayers.
The ICA held people in an
armlock, getting them to fund their own flight home, with or
without being paid their wages.
They all just want to get rid
of the problem with no regard for justice, law or rights. The
source of the problem is the employer, but by action or inaction,
our government is abetting all these abuses, ranging from cheating
people of their wages, to robbery of their handphones, to
kidnap.
It's not just bad officers. It
is the system. There are many things wrong with the foreign worker
work permit system, as illustrated by this case, which I will point
out in a follow-up article.
But meanwhile, I hope you feel
as angry as I do. 
© Yawning
Bread
i thought we are supposed to be 1st world country how come such
decadent lawlessness?
