Clik here to view.
By Andrew Loh
The decision by the authorities to repatriate 29 of the Chinese SMRT workers is deplorable. There didn’t seem to have been consideration accorded to the mitigating factors which were present in this situation. The authorities’ deportation of the 29 smacks of highhandedness and there are serious questions which need to be asked.
But first, it is a well known fact among those who work with migrant workers that one of the fears of these lowly-paid workers is that of being repatriated. The reason is simple: many of them pay huge amounts in agency fees – money borrowed from friends and relatives, from sale of their possessions and property - to come to Singapore to work and to be repatriated means they will suffer perhaps a lifetime of debt. It is because of this fear, among others, which also prevents them from raising complaints against their employers when they are maltreated. Many do suffer in silence.
The decision by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to repatriate the 29 Chinese workers will entrench this fear further among the migrant community here. While MOM’s actions may give assurance to businesses that such industrial action will not be tolerated and that indeed the government itself will step in to resolve such matters, they ironically and perhaps perversely also legitimize errant employers’ mistreatment of the workers.
The decision to deport the 29 is deplorable for several reasons – the main one of which is the existent mitigating factors for the workers.
By its own admission, SMRT accepted that the workers’ living condition – which was one of two issues the workers went on strike to raise awareness on – “could be improved.” The MOM itself used a stronger term – that the conditions were “below par.” As such, one would incline towards understanding of the workers’ grievances.
The other issue was the disparity in wages between the Chinese workers and those of the Malaysians and Singaporeans. From news reports, it would seem that it was a matter of miscommunication, or late communication, or misunderstanding. And even in this, the CEO of SMRT, Mr Desmond Kuek, admitted that SMRT could have done better in explaining the disparity. Indeed, Mr Kuek said there are "deep seated issues" with SMRT itself.
So, it would seem SMRT too accept part of the blame.
What we have here then are two instances – indeed the two issues which are at the crux of the strike – which the SMRT accepted blame and responsibility for. The MOM too agreed with the first one – that the living conditions of the workers were “below par.”
The explanation for the deportation is that the workers’ action had caused or disrupted essential services, and industrial peace. It is also said that the workers should have sought to air their grievances legally and through “proper channels.”
But this is easier said than done. Indeed, news reports say that the workers had tried to speak with the management of SMRT, to no avail. The strike was, it would seem, their last resort to seek justice as they saw it. [Read Alex Au’s write-up on the so-called channels which workers presumably have.]
Given the circumstances, which include legitimate mitigating factors, the decision to deport the workers is indeed harsh.
The authorities have also said that 5 of the workers will be charged in court, which raises some questions in itself. One, why are they the only ones charged? Second, why are the other 29 being deported without them also being charged first? What if the courts find the 5 not guilty of having conducted or instigated an “illegal strike”, as the authorities claim? Would we not have wrongly deported the other 29 workers, without according them a right to defence?
It would thus seem that MOM’s decision to deport the 29 is presumptuous. MOM needs to explain its decision.
But beyond this particular incident, there is a more serious underlying question and issue we need to consider - while the government deals swiftly with such actions by workers, what rights do these workers have to protect themselves from the allegations and charges from the unions, ministers, the employers and even the public? It was reported in the Straits Times that the workers were barred from speaking to the media, and that reporters were not allowed into the compound of the dormitory.
Were the workers – both the 5 and those who are being deported – given legal representation, and legal advice?
How fairly has MOM dealt with the matter?
Lastly, the problems faced by transient workers are not new. Non-payment of salaries, poor accommodation, mistreatment, physical abuse, etc are not uncommon. [Read some of these stories here.]
To talk tough and deport workers who “take the law into their own hands” is all well and good but they do not solve the institutionalized problems faced by these workers. These problems have been raised time and time again by various quarters, especially by the two non-governmental organizations which are at the forefront of providing aid to these workers – TWC2 and HOME.
In 2010, the two NGOs issued a paper on the problems faced by these workers and made recommendations for systemic improvements. [Read it here: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied]
It is simplistic for the MOM, the unions, MPs and ministers to say that workers should go through the “proper channels” to air their grievances. It only shows a woeful lack of understanding of the problems these workers face.
Unfortunately, with the “tough stance” taken by the authorities in this case, migrant workers will continue to live in fear and not have courage to speak up.
Will MOM be as swift and decisive in providing these workers protection as it has in running to the aid of SMRT? It seems to have been dragging its feet on this for the longest time.
The upcoming review of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) will give a clue. But no one is holding his breath. After all, MOM has said little about the main complaints by the workers – their wages and living conditions. In fact, it is more concerned about how our “industrial harmony” is not compromised. It seems to fail to understand that our “industrial harmony” is or should be founded on fair treatment of workers, which include fair wages and adequate living conditions.
It is sad that the workers have been repatriated for precisely speaking up on these things.
Surely, we can’t be proud of the action taken by MOM.