SINGAPORE – In the first six months of 2011, the Manpower Ministry took 27 employers to task for hiring illegal foreign workers.

Two of them were sentenced to one month’s jail and fined S$5,000 each, while the rest received fines of between S$1,000 and S$22,500.

The Singapore Contractors Association said the ramped up construction of public flats and private homes, on top of the Downtown MRT Line project, have led to higher demand for foreign construction workers.

Employers in the construction industry said they are facing labour woes.

With changes to the foreign worker quota and difficulty in getting locals to fill the jobs, they said they are left with no choice but to raise wages.

As a result, business costs have gone up by about 20 to 30 per cent.

The Singapore Contractors Association said some firms may have resorted to hiring illegal foreign workers so that they could deliver their projects on schedule.

But a higher pay package is still not drawing one particular group of construction workers.

Mr Kenneth Loo, 1st vice president of the Singapore Contractors Association, said: “Where the workers are coming from, predominantly from China, a lot of them are not coming up because domestically they themselves are also having enough work, so Singapore does not become that attractive for them anymore.”

Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, any person caught employing foreigners without valid work passes is punishable with a fine of up to S$15,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months.

This will be over and above the restitution of any levy evaded. Any person who abets the illegal employment of foreigners will also face the same penalties.

For immediate release

The recently reported strike by about 200 foreign workers at a worksite in Tampines over unpaid salaries once again highlights the inadequacy of existing systems for preventing such exploitation of labour by employers. (Straits Times, 7 Feb 2012, Wage dispute resolved after 200 workers stage protest, by Jessica Lim and Elizabeth Soh). The Straits Times report also mentions that workers had suffered deductions of $1,500 purportedly for future renewal of their work permits. Such deductions are illegal and yet are extremely common. But why is this illegal practice so widespread? Why do we regularly hear of unpaid salaries?

During a current research project being undertaken by TWC2, a majority of Bangladeshi workers interviewed at Changi airport before their return home reported either having paid to renew their contracts or in a few cases, had to forego renewal of their contracts because they refused to pay the money demanded.

The Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) essentially reactive approach to such problems is far from satisfactory. Moreover, MOM’s reliance on whistle-blowers (except in cases of mass protests) from among aggrieved employees before the ministry would start an investigation is unrealistic, especially as the ministry does nothing to protect whistle blowers from retribution by employers.

MOM calls on workers to make formal complaints if they have not been paid. Such calls ignore the reality that (a) the employee seldom has documentary proof of his complaint and thus runs the risk that after exposing himself, his complaint is not taken seriously, (b) the employer typically terminates the complainant’s employment and tries to repatriate him as soon as possible.

Given such a high risk to undertake and such a high price to pay (losing one’s job for which a workers would typically have paid thousands of dollars to secure), it is hardly any wonder that workers seldom respond to MOM’s call for early reporting of employer abuses.

The result is a festering of grievances until enough workers are prepared to down tools. Mass action and safety in numbers provide workers protection from an employer’s wrath and retribution when MOM does not provide the same to a single, isolated complainant.

To address these weaknesses in policy, TWC2 has proposed a few simple changes to the regulatory framework.

1. It should be made mandatory for employers of foreign workers to provide a pay slip to each employee monthly showing detailed calculations of pay, overtime, allowances and deductions. This arms the employee with documentary proof as to whether he has been paid correctly, and whether illegal deductions have been levied.
2. It should be made mandatory for salaries to be paid through a bank account. This provides an audit trail as to how much was paid and when.
3. Employers should be penalised for premature termination of work permits. (Specific ideas were provided to MOM.)
4. Employers should be incentivised to draw workers from a pool of transferable workers who are already in Singapore rather than bring in new workers. (Specific ideas were also provided to MOM.)

Proposals (1) and (2) help address the issue of empowerment of the worker when he has a legitimate complaint, thus making whistle-blowing more effective. Proposals (3) and (4) provide workers with a little job security, so that the price they have to pay for making legitimate complaints against errant employers is not as high as at present. Such an improved framework would make it more likely that salary abuses are reported early and action taken.

TWC2 put these proposals to the Minister of State for Manpower Tan Chuan-jin more than a month ago. We have not so far received any response.

It is also important to enforce whatever laws we have. Too often, when employers fail to pay workers or make illegal deductions from salaries, MOM treats the matter as one of civil dispute, when the fact is that one side has clearly broken the law. This case at Tampines, involving Sunway Concrete Products and Techcom Construction & Trading (as reported by the Straits Times), calls for prosecution and deterrent sentencing. TWC2 hopes MOM presses for that. It would send a wrong signal of impunity if such an outcome did not result.

At 8 am, instead of starting work, the workers went on strike because they have not been paid since October 2011.  TOC understands that several pleas to the main and sub contractors to settle the unpaid salaries went unheard.

The workers complained that there were deductions of $150 per month for food and $20 for utilities.  Further to these, $1500 was also deducted from workers who requested that their work permits be renewed.

The workers on strike complained that they were paid only $18 per day and had to work till 1 am, with no overtime pay.

Photo from The Online Citizen

The Online Citizen also carried a statement from the Ministry of Manpower which included these paragraphs:

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) was alerted by the Police this morning of an incident involving around 200 work permit holders employed by Sunway Concrete Products (S) Pte Ltd and Techcom Construction & Trading Pte Ltd over unpaid salaries since November 2011.

MOM’s officers responded to the incident immediately and went down to the worksite at Tampines Industrial Street 62.

MOM’s interim investigations revealed that the employers had not paid their workers since November 2011. MOM understands that by 8pm today (6 February 2012), the employers would have paid out the November 2011 salaries to all the affected workers, with MOM officers present on-site.

The employers have also assured MOM that the affected workers will receive their outstanding December 2011 salaries by this Friday (10 February). MOM will continue investigations here and follow up with the workers to ensure that they receive their December 2011 and January 2012 salaries promptly. MOM officers will also interview workers on other employment-related issues.

This incident was also covered by the Straits Times. The details in the Straits Times’ story were consistent with the Online Citizen’s. There was however a mention that a similar incident of non-payment of salaries had happened before.

Most of the workers The Straits Times spoke to said this was the first time they had not been paid, and they had not been told why. However, some pointed to a similar incident about five years ago.

– Straits Times, Feb 7, 2012: Wage dispute resolved after 200 workers stage protest, By Jessica Lim & Elizabeth Soh

A follow-up story the next day chose to highlight the fall in the number of salary claims over the last three years, based on numbers provided by the Ministry of Manpower.

There were 3,000 such claims last year, down from 3,900 in 2010 and about 4,450 in 2009 – a fall the MOM attributes to a step-up in its outreach programmes and tighter legislation.

Work permit holders who earn less than $2,000 a month, such as construction workers, typically file the majority of such claims. The rest are Employment Pass and S Pass holders.

– Straits Times, Feb 8, 2012: Fewer foreign workers filing claims: MOM, by By Jessica Lim & Amanda Tan

It also reported that HOME’s and TWC2′s observation did not support MOM’s claims of a declining trend:

At the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, the number of cases received over unpaid wages stood at 400 last year, up from 300 in 2010.

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) has had 30 to 45 foreign workers approaching it monthly on salary-related disputes for at least the past two years.

– ibid.

Two TWC2 exco members were quoted by the newspaper for this report. Debbie Fordyce said such disputes are more common among workers who work for smaller construction companies, while Noorashikin Abdul Rahman pointed out that “Employers think they can get away with it because they think the workers have no avenues to turn to.”

The same story on Feb 8 quoted member of parliament (PAP) Yeo Guat Kwang saying that it was ‘quite worrying’ that foreign workers were taking matters into their own hands and risk going against the law — which sounded as if he was putting the spotlight on the workers for instigating unrest.

Continued from Part 2.

Monday, December 19, 2011, Manik showed up at Alexandra Hospital for his long-delayed knee operation. He was nervous, as anyone would be undergoing his first surgery. An operating theatre was ready and waiting for him. He changed into a gown and was placed in a gurney while surgeons and nurses scrubbed up.

Then someone noticed that the Letter of Guarantee (LOG) from the employer had not been signed. This piece of paper is the employer’s undertaking to pay for the medical treatment; it is commonly the sand thrown in to jam up the gears of the system.

Urgent phone calls were made to the employer, to Manik’s lawyer and to Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2). The employer, when finally reached, said that he didn’t realise that an LOG needed to be signed.

“As if one would issue a cheque without signing it,” was TWC2 exco member Debbie Fordyce’s astringent comment.

A new LOG, with signature, was eventually faxed over to the hospital, but by then it was too late for the operation to commence. There wasn’t enough time left before other patients’ appointments clashed. And so the precious time of highly-paid surgeons and nurses and the expensive resource of operating theatre time were wasted. As for Manik, he was on an emotional roller-coaster as he went  home.

Waste of resources

This incident reminded your correspondent of a similar incident with another migrant worker, Amran. He too had a broken leg, for which a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)  scan was scheduled. The nurse told him not to be late for the appointment.

“There’s a long queue for MRI appointments. If you are late or fail to make the appointment, we can’t give you another appointment until several weeks later,” she said. That would only mean treatment for his leg would be delayed.

An LOG was requested from his employer weeks in advance. Yet, by the day of the appointment, no letter was forthcoming, and the precious MRI appointment slot was wasted. Without an MRI result available in time, all his subsequent orthopaedic consultations had to be rescheduled. Much paperwork resulted.

Singapore spends a lot of money on shiny new equipment for our hospital system. We employ medical professionals at high cost. Hospitals run at close to 100% occupancy and many other patients have to wait in line for appointments. And yet we have the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) designing an LOG process that serves little purpose except to waste resources.

The theory underlying the system may well be that for treatment to proceed, three elements must be in place:

• the treatment must be medically necessary
• the patient must provide informed consent
• somebody must agree to pay for it

The LOG is perhaps designed as documentation for the third undertaking.

However, it is misconceived. The law already mandates that an employer of a Work Permit holder shall be responsible for his medical care, and so long as the first two elements are in place, the third must follow. Section 3 of Part II of the Employment of Foreign Manpower (EFMA) Regulations says:

3. The employer shall be responsible for and bear the costs of the foreign employee’s upkeep and maintenance in Singapore. This includes the provision of medical treatment, except that the foreign employee may be made to bear part of any medical costs in excess of the minimum mandatory coverage if —
(a) the part of the medical costs to be paid by the foreign employee forms not more than 10% of the employee’s monthly salary; and
(b) the foreign employee’s agreement to pay part of any medical costs is stated explicitly in the foreign employee’s employment contract or collective agreement.

As an aside: The 10% co-payment would almost never apply because (i) foreign work permit holders are paid so little and (ii) the vast majority do not have written employment contracts (probably because employers wish to be contractually liable for as little as possible.)

If a worker complains to MOM about his employer failing to provide an LOG, MOM is often seen to ask for a doctor’s certification that the treatment is “necessary”. Once a doctor so certifies, MOM will lean on the employer to provide an LOG. But what this only proves is that MOM itself recognises that once the first two aforementioned elements are in place, the third is automatically activated. That is, the employer is legally liable to pay for the treatment.

The process of issuing an LOG thus serves little purpose. It gives the semblance of a veto to the employer when he has no such power. The semblance however triggers attempts to exercise that imaginary veto, which then has to be overridden — thus involving much extra work, delays and waste. A more absurd system can hardly be imagined.

TWC2 has proposed that the aforementioned Section 3 of the EFMA Regulations be amended or interpreted to require employers of work permit holders to furnish a blanket guarantee for all necessary medical treatment at any public hospital or polyclinic. That blanket guarantee should be provided right at the beginning, in conjunction with an application for a work permit. Following that, a medical guarantee card should be issued to the worker at the same time as a work permit card is formally issued by MOM. The validity of this guarantee should not be cancellable so long as the worker is in Singapore and is not transferred to another employer.

At the polyclinics and public hospitals, only a simple form should need to be filled up. It should have:

• references to the work permit number and details on the medical guarantee card, including employer’s name
• a certification that the treatment is medically necessary
• a consent by the worker to receiving the treatment

Polyclinics and hospitals should invoice the employer for the cost of consultation, procedures and prescriptions.

The employer can always protect himself against this unlimited liability through the purchase of insurance. MOM already requires that employers purchase insurance though TWC2 is of the view that the minimum amount stipulated  is too low — but that’s a separate issue. In fact, the existing requirement to purchase insurance only shows up the absurdity of having to issue individual LOGs for each and every procedure.

Operation rescheduled

After the fiasco of a missing signature, Alexandra Hospital gave Manik a new date: Monday, January 9, 2012. In the weeks leading up to this new date, many phone calls were made and letters written again to obtain a new LOG.

The LOG that the employer finally faxed (too late) to Alexandra Hospital on December 19 could not be used to cover the cost of the January 9 operation, a fact that once again highlights how ridiculous and wasteful the present system is.

Up till the week before January 9, the new LOG was not forthcoming. There was a real risk of having to reschedule again. Only at the weekend did TWC2 get confirmation that one had been issued, and with a signature.

Manik was rolled into the operating theatre at 2 p.m.. The operation completed successfully by 5 p.m., he was moved to a ward for the night.

In complete contrast to his experience with MOM and the unfriendly and inefficient processes MOM has created, Manik loved our public healthcare system. The nurses were good to him; so good he didn’t want to be discharged. Even when he had gone home, the hospital called a day later to check on him. He appreciated the care and concern.

Amran came over to visit too.

The doctors had told Manik that even though they had repaired the ligaments, he might not make a full recovery. “Maybe 50 percent, he say,” Manik told your correspondent.  Would the outcome have been better if he had received prompt attention? It’s been fourteen months since the accident.

That itself raises a host of other questions. Unable to work as his leg slowly healed, how was Manik going to sustain himself? Do our laws offer any protection? Are our laws enforced? Or do we throw newly discharged patients out on the streets to beg? What other absurdities lie in wait amidst our foreign worker policies?

To be continued.

Abul Kalam thought he had found the perfect job, one that he could arrange directly with the employer and that didn’t require him to deal with an agent or recruiter in Bangladesh. Most Bangladeshi workers are recruited by a friend or acquaintance who takes $8,000 to $10,000 to line up a job in Singapore. That’s the going rate for men who come for the first time. During their first sojourn in Singapore, they seek out contacts that may help them to secure a second job at a lower rate.

Indeed, this is one way to succeed even when a man loses money on the first job. Men expect to be able to earn back what they paid within two years, but all too often the salary is lower than anticipated, the deductions higher, the overtime unavailable, the man is injured before completing the term of the permit, or several of the above. That first time in Singapore may result in contacts that can arrange a second job at a lower rate, and therefore a greater chance of making more than the initial payment.

Abul Kalam worked for three years from Dec 2007 until Nov 2010. He made connections that he thought would enable him to arrange a deal directly with the employer, Raj, for the next job. Raj communicated with him directly over email and phone while he was in Bangladesh assuring him that he wouldn’t need to pay a middleman. Abul Kalam scanned and emailed his passport and received the promised in-principle approval (IPA) needed to enter Singapore and apply for the work permit. Abul Kalam bought his own ticket and was prepared to pay $3,000 when he arrived in Singapore. This sounded like a steal compared to what workers usually pay the Bangladeshi con-men.

Arriving on 13 November 2011, he bunked with a friend while he arranged to meet Raj. A few days later they met at Sengkang MRT taxi stand, near Raj’s home, where Abul Kalam turned over his passport and the $3,000. He didn’t suppose there was anything suspicious or wrong with this. They met again when Abul Kalam’s thumbprints were taken for the work permit. Raj collected another $250 for this, explaining it as a fee imposed by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).

Abul Kalam, still trusting, did not demand receipts or acknowledgment for these payments. He met Raj 5 or 6 times, but only when Raj handed him the work permit and asked him to sign twelve salary slips, one for each day of the month did he start to worry.

Raj told him that even though he can’t provide work, he’s free to source work on his own now that he has the work permit. The signed salary slips would be used to prove that Abul Kalam was receiving a regular salary should there be any question about illegal deployment. Abul Kalam knew that working for a different employer is not allowed under the work permit regulations, and may also know that many employers expect their employees to do this. Quite a few men would keep quiet about illegal deployment after locking themselves into such an indebted situation.

Abul Kalam threw away the IPA, which would show the monthly salary and deductions, the agent fees and name of the agent. He remembers that the basic monthly salary was listed as $520.

For a long time he agonized about going to MOM, hoping that Raj would offer him work. He spoke to Raj regularly by phone during this time, but waited until mid January before making a complaint. The case is now under investigation. Without proof, Abul Kalam may have difficulty making a case about the money he paid. That’s the way men of honour operate, he assumed, with a handshake and a promise, rather than signatures and documents.

He first visited MOM on 16 Jan to discuss his situation and was issued with a special pass a few days later, which allows him to remain in Singapore for the investigation. MOM has made no provisions for his food or accommodations. They have offered him the chance to participate in the temporary job scheme (TJS), but that doesn’t guarantee him a job. He spoke to the employers looking for TJS workers at MOM but none had work for someone like him. Even the employer who offers air-con servicing didn’t accept his skills as appropriate for the work.

Abul Kalam doesn’t talk much. In summary he would only mutter “company no good, now many many problem. Makan, sleeping, phone card . . .” His wife and two sons are depending on him, unaware that this perfect job has fallen through.

Unlike other stories at this site, 29-year-old Madasamy Muniyandi’s story is not one of grievous injustice. He has no major beef with his employer though he suffered a bad accident that has left him with a permanent impairment.

But he’s tired of waiting. The process is very slow. As an only son, his mother is waiting for him to return home (his father has passed away), but he’s stuck here in Singapore, unsure when the Workmen’s Compensation assessment will be completed.

He arrived in Singapore in December 2010 to take up a job with a construction company as a scaffolding supervisor. Despite that title, “my salary $20 a day” — not significantly different from any other construction worker. Barely two months into the job, while he was up on a scaffold inspecting some joints, other workers on a platform above him kicked up some gravel. A small sharp stone came like a bullet into him. Blood was all over his face within a second.

The safety manager rushed him to National University Hospital where he was warded for three days. On discharge, he rested at the company dormitory for one month, the duration of the medical leave he had been given.

“Did you get your MC pay?” I asked him. The term “MC pay” refers to the quasi-salary that a worker on medical leave is entitled to based on the Employment Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

“Yes, for the one month MC, I got $600,” Madasamy said.

Considering the number of cases TWC2 sees every month of injured workers who have not received a cent of MC pay when it ought to be routine, Madasamy’s employer would count as among the better ones.

After the first month, the doctor prescribed Light Duties, recalled Madasamy. “But Light Duty also work scaffolding.” This is a common issue. It’s all very well for a doctor to prescribe light duties for a recovering patient, but in the construction line, what work is there that is “light”?

Despite trying to do as told for a month, Madasamy couldn’t take that kind of work up on the rigging after the injury. “I have many problem, sometimes I feel I falling.” So in May, he stopped working and moved out to a rented room in Little India.

But I had to ask: “Did you get paid for the one month of Light Duties?”

“Yes, $500,” said Madasamy. He didn’t go into how it was calculated, but seemed satisfied with the amount.

Not long after, in June, he sought out a lawyer who advised him to make a report at the Ministry of Manpower about the accident, which would initiate proceedings for an injury claim. With that, his work permit was cancelled and he was put on a special pass. This made him a jobless foreign worker.

On 27 July 2011, he underwent a scheduled operation for the injury and was again put on MC for one month.  Once again, the company gave him $600 as MC pay and covered the cost of the operation, about $7,000. Once again, Madasamy could count himself lucky that the employer lived up to its obligations. However, after the MC period ended, Madasamy would have no further income since he was no longer employed.

“So what is happening now?” I asked him. “Do you still have follow-up medical appointments?”

“No more,” Madasamy replied.  “Medical appointment finish already. Assessment also already, but no report.”

He was still waiting to know what had been recommended as the compensation amount.

“Waiting long time,” he said, now coming to the crux of his problem.

“Did you ask MOM?”

“Have. Ask already,” he said. “But MOM say report have many problem. But I don’t know what kind of problem.”

In theory, the process is like this: After a worker’s injury has been treated, he is assessed for any permanent incapacity or impairment. Based on the severity, a compensation amount for permanent injury is recommended. But the employer has a right to question the assessment and the recommendation, even though he ought to have purchased Workmen’s Compensation insurance to cover such pay-outs.

Madasamy did not know if this was where his case was stuck, or whether it was stuck at a stage before that — the medical assessment. His lawyer was as much in the dark as he was. All Madasamy knew was that he was waiting. He has been without work and income since the middle of 2011, and he doesn’t know how long more he has to wait.

Bureaucratic processes grind their way slowly, and the subject person is often forgotten. An extra week and or extra month may not seem like much to the civil service or to the employer’s administrative staff, but to a now-wageless worker trying to sustain himself on money borrowed from friends — $10 or $20 at a time — this is no small matter.

He just wants to go home. But had he thought about what he’d do back home in India?

“Yes,” he said, cheering up at the change in topic. “I work in pharmacy. I work there before, for seven years.”

“Do you mean farm or pharmacy?”

“Pharmacy, in a hospital.”

Apparently he had the relevant qualification. “So why did you come to Singapore?” I wanted to know.

“The salary very little. Only 5,000 rupees, about Singapore $150.”

“But you were happier, then?”

Madasamy smiled, thinking of those times, proud that he had a certificate and vocation he could rely on. Fortunately too, it’s a vocation he can return to despite the permanent disability from the accident.

And what was that disability? He’s blind in the right eye. The stone that came at him had shot straight into the eye.

Mr Mark Oh (left) of the Korean Churches & Missionary Association hands a donation to Dr Russell Heng (right), president of TWC2

En route to nearby countries for their missionary work, members of the Korean Churches & Missionary Association sought out Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) to lend us a hand. They gave us a generous donation of $2,500 which they raised among themselves.

They also paid a visit to our soup kitchen at Isthana restaurant, a visit hosted by TWC2 president, Dr Russell Heng. There they saw for themselves the migrant workers that TWC2 sets out to assist. The members saw the nourishing food we serve and engaged several workers in conversation.

TWC2 also thanks the association for sharing with us these pictures which they took.

The assistant sales manager at an employment agency had been asked by two client companies — Sun Blues Cleaning Maintenance and TY Enterprise (both companies are located in the same premises and have a common administrative manager, Ms Thenkumari Shanmugam Packirisamy) — to bring in foreign workers as cleaner supervisors on S Passes. At the time, the minimum monthly salary to qualify for an S Pass was $1,800.

However, when the companies’ quota for S Passes were exhausted, Ng arranged to get the rest into Singapore on Employment Passes, for which the minimum monthly salary was then $2,500. (Currently the minimum salaries for S Pass and Employment Pass holders are $2,000 and $2,800 respectively.)  At least 27 Chinese national workers were hired by the two companies through Ng.

In fact, the workers were only paid $900 a month.

The Straits Times reported January 31, 2012,  that Ng had known that the four workers would be paid only $900 each for the entire duration of their employment with the companies, but between March 29 and June 9, 2010, had helped fill up the application forms falsely declaring their wages anyway. Another 23 charges were taken into consideration at sentencing.

The news report did not mention whether Sun Blues and TY Enterprise would also be prosecuted.

Below is the transcript from the Hansard of a parliamentary question asked by Mr Pritam Singh (Workers’ Party – Aljunied) on November 21, 2011. One employee of a repatriation company was jailed for voluntarily causing hurt in 2010, but from the absence of mention, it appears that no one has so far been prosecuted for wrongful confinement.

—

Mr Pritam Singh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower in light of reports on the wrongful restraint of foreign workers and their alleged forceful repatriation by foreign worker repatriation companies (a) whether these allegations have been investigated and, if so, what is the outcome of the investigations; and (b) whether the Government has any plans to regulate the activities of such repatriation companies.

TWC2.org.sg from benjamin broekema on Vimeo.

Benjamin Broekema spent nearly three hours on his feet making the above time-lapse video at Isthana Restaurant, one of the two places where Transient Workers Count Too operate our daily free meals programme for out-of-work migrant workers.

At the start of the video, while the day is still bright, you see TWC2 executive committee member Debbie Fordyce setting up a record book and a cup of red tokens. Almost immediately, workers approach, have a brief conversation, sign in, collect a token each and go collect their food. Soon after, other volunteers arrive to help out.

Some workers need a consultation about their cases. They sit for a longer time, have their case histories recorded (e.g. at 00:40 secs) and their options weighed.

That (typical) evening, we served over 200 men. As Debbie said, on first seeing the rapid video: “That’s just the way it feels too, all that frantic movement and hand waving and finger stabbing and note scratching.”

For more information about our Cuff Road Food Programme, see http://twc2.org.sg/what-we-do/cuff-road-food-programme/. We would also be grateful if more volunteers came forward to help out.