By Paul M

As a society we can often measure our progress by the attitudes, ambitions and actions of our youth. So one of the more hopeful signs is the increasing interest of youth and educationists in the treatment of migrant workers.

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) has a programmme called ‘Day School’ in which 2 or 3 senior volunteers take a group of junior college or polytechnic students on a learning tour of Little India. The objective is to introduce Singapore students to the often atrocious environments and attitudes, to which migrant workers are subjected.

Saturday, April 14, saw a group from St Andrew’s Junior College take this tour. Unfortunately, rain clouds wanted to join in too.

Upon arrival, the students, ranging in age from 17-19, both Singaporean and foreign, were greeted by Dr. Noor (TWC2 Vice President) and Ms Shelley Thio (Executive Committee Member) and invited to enjoy a Bangladeshi meal. Aside from being a quick introduction to the Bangladeshi palate, this exercise provided an empirical understanding of the worrying need and colossal effort required to provide such meals, feeding over 300 workers daily at the Cuff Road food program.

Bellies full and epicurean enquiries satisfied, our group made its way to a space above the restaurant known as Dibashram, which serves as a drop-in centre for migrant workers. Here in the lofty and airy sanctuary, workers can come to receive consultation or to simply lie down on a couch and relax beneath the high ceilings, as many workers happened to be doing when we arrived.

We had interrupted a moment of tranquility, rare in the lives of these men who normally work 14-hour days.

Roughly 25 students were ushered in and sat attentively while Dr. Noor and Ms. Thio described in detail the myriad ways in which TWC2 is engaged with the community, the government and the migrant workers in pursuing their mission. The weather’s mood was not reflected by the students, as they were engaged, inquisitive and respectful of the somber subjects and heartbreaking stories unfolding during the discussions.

At intervals, videos were shown, the first being a short documentary produced by SMU Students concerning Bangladeshi workers. The video can be viewed here: http://twc2.org.sg/2012/04/02/smu-students-create-video-sensation-from-little-india-interviews/. The video”s intimate interviews and emotional exchanges were given countenance by the many faces looking on, this writer included. The worker’s projected tears make it impossible not to contemplate their lives had they simply remained in Bangladesh. As the teenagers considered the countless offences against the men’s dignity, questions were asked: Who is responsible? What are the cause of these ailments and diseases? Are there any consequences for breaches of regulations? Why do they keep coming? And many more questions, all in a similar vein.

A second video was shown concerning maids. An Australian current affairs program threw a rare light upon the agencies and the aggressive employers, creating a saddening story for an alarming proportion of the 200,000 domestic maids in Singapore. Student reactions on learning of the maids’ harrowing tales and sometimes abusive conditions were visible and audible. Ironic laughs were drawn at a point of the video that explained that a maid must ask for permission to use the phone in order to make a complaint. The absurdity of this reality not lost on the young audience.

Exploring such evocative and emotional themes is heavy going on a rainy Saturday afternoon, so the next part of the programme would let the students stretch their legs, hit the streets and bear witness to some of the conditions that had been discussed during the afternoon, in particular, that of cramped, stuffy worker accommodation. The rain gave no quarter, but the message remained undiluted and the group tried to press on. In the end though, a few harder-ro-reach destinations had to be cut out of the programme.

The view the students had was from the street, glad not to have to venture inside. The students listened as Dr. Noor explained that as many as 20 workers can share an unhygienic, dark, dank room. Visible through the small opened window were skeletal beds stacked to the ceiling, revealing the strangled time spent when not working. Plenty of comparisons with school accommodation offered a degree of levity, but the window told a sad story.

Stopping at a void deck below an HDB housing block, Dr. Noor explained some of the geography of stereotype. Acknowledging that stereotypes exist, the students listed to some of the preconceptions held of migrant workers, such as: “dirty”, “lecherous”, “dangerous” “untrustworthy” and many more unsavoury adjectives.

Nat, an 18-year-old from Thailand observed: “Singaporeans seem to look down on migrant workers. They don’t seem to understand the importance of helping them to maintain a better life, and this attitude is then passed onto the children”.

His colleague Nee, another exchange student, but from Vietnam, added: “These problems stem from ignorance.

“We need to develop a common dialogue in order to create an attitude of understanding, to sit down and listen.”

In these and other brief conversations with the students, it was clear that the road their own lives had travelled was a vastly different one from the workers’. Despite being aware of a vague problem, the extent of the dichotomy between their experience of the world and the workers’ was a shock.

The group agreed that the Day School initiative had made them aware of a much deeper and pernicious problem. They understood better that the work of TWC2 is not only to react to a problem through providing charity, but to change the systemic causes of these problems. And the first step to that is to prick people’s conscience.

Photos by Sinyee

His left hand is now a stiff claw; it’s not going to help him earn a living ever again. He is only 26 years old, according to his passport.

Fifteen months ago, on January 9, 2011, Johir was at work on a construction site switching or attaching some parts to what he called “the mouth” of an excavator. With his right arm he signalled the operator to lift the mouth a little higher so he could continue working on it. Instead, some other parts moved unexpectedly and slammed against his left hand, almost severing it.

“Very pain, and many, many blood,” he recalled.

He was sent to Singapore General Hospital where he had four operations over the 14 or 15 days that he was warded. “Four operations, you know, very serious,” he wanted to drive the point home. After discharge, he was given a medical certificate and exempted from work for ten more months.

In September 2011, a medical assessment was made to determine the extent of residual permanent incapacity. Instead, the doctors concluded that yet another operation was needed, and so a fifth was carried out. Even so, it has not managed to restore functionality to the hand.

A second assessment was conducted in January 2012, and at the end of March, the Ministry of Manpower informed him of the proposed amount for the insurance pay-out under the Workman’s Injury Compensation scheme. For reasons of confidentiality, TWC2 cannot disclose the amount.

“Are you happy with that amount?” asked TWC2.

Johir nodded, and then proceeded to list a series of “buts” — which will be discussed further on.

Generally speaking, the company has not been derelict over its responsibilities. It has clearly undertaken responsibility for the employee’s hospital stay and operations, and has paid him a few months of salary while he was recuperating. Yet while that is the overall impression, Johir’s “buts” are still worth examining. In other words, even when the system more or less worked as intended, this injured worker still got somewhat less than a fair deal. For the better part of a year, he was left with no income at all.

—

“I spend $1,500 on medicine,” Johir told TWC2. “Company not yet pay me back.”

There is a gap in the rules regarding employers’ responsibility for medical care. In-patient costs are borne by the employer, but prescriptions for the period after discharge are not included. This makes no sense. A patient will still need painkillers, antibiotics or other medicines in the days and weeks following discharge; why are these costs excluded?

The salary that he received for a while after the accident also does not survive scrutiny. If what he says is correct, then he seems to have been paid rather less than what was due to him under the law.

“Company pay me three months full pay and three months half pay,” reported Johir.

“What do you mean by ‘full pay’? How much is ‘full pay’?” TWC2 wanted to know.

“Eighteen dollars,” he replied, “26 days.” This worked out to only $468. Half pay would mean $234.

However, his pay while he was working, inclusive of overtime, was “$650, more. Maybe seven hundred, eight hundred.” But there were no written payslips given to him so he has no record of the exact amounts.

What does the law stipulate?  Paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule of the Workman’s Injury Compensation Act says:

4.— (1)  Where temporary incapacity whether total or partial results from the injury, the employee shall be entitled to full earnings for a period of 60 days if he is hospitalised and 14 days if he is not hospitalised and thereafter to a further periodical payment of an amount equal to two-thirds of his earnings during the incapacity or during a period of one year, whichever period is shorter.

It is important to note that “earnings” includes average overtime pay, as stated in Section 2 (Interpretation) of the Act. Secondly “temporary incapacity”, at least by convention, means being on medically certified leave.

Yet, according to Johir, although given ten months’ medical leave, he was not paid beyond the sixth month. He also said “half pay” when the law stipulates two-thirds. In addition, he said he was paid $18 x 26 days — which suggests that it was merely his basic salary instead of his gross salary (including overtime). His disadvantage, of course, is that “I cannot prove my overtime, paper no give.”

“But at least you had medical certificates showing ten months, didn’t you?” asked TWC2.

“Then company last month tell me they lost the MC,” he responded, getting a little agitated. “I gave them MC, I am sure, but they lost it.” Fortunately he had kept photocopies.

So, even as Johir is relatively happy with the compensation, he may not be getting all that ought to be due to him. He still has battles to fight. Partly, this is because the rules have gaps, as in the cost of prescriptions. Partly too, the Ministry of Manpower’s record of patchy enforcement has promoted a culture of widespread abuses, or at least cut corners, by employers. The system as designed also disempowers workers. For example, TWC2 has long argued that it should be mandatory for employers to provide written or printed pay slips so that workers can prove their case whenever needed, but our proposal has sunk into the ministry’s proverbial black hole.

—

“I think I going home soon,” said Johir, expecting the pay-out to be finalised within a week or two. “Faster, better. I want to go home. My mother is sick, in hospital.”

But first, he has to pay off the debt he had incurred to get the job in Singapore, and more debts he took on when he borrowed money so he could survive the months after his injury — to pay for food, lodging and prescriptions. How much of the compensation amount will be left, is the germane question.

In the past five years, 24 maids fell to their deaths while working, reported the newspaper, with four in 2011. Fourteen employers have been fined for putting their maids in the way of danger, the report added.

Her words were reported in the Straits Times, Monday, April 23, 2012.

“They must constantly drum that into the maid’s head – that there’s no need for her to open the grilles, there’s no need for her to clean the outside of windows – and once they do that, they will be able to save a lot of lives,” the newspaper reported her as saying.

“It’s unnecessary death, and it’s really very sad.”

Referring to the fact that many domestic workers come from rural environments and are not used to high-rise living, she added: “Having to work in such high-rise buildings is quite a nightmare for them, so we need to take extra precautions to protect them, without compromising the standard and quality of work at home,” she said.

She also suggested that maids be barred from opening window grilles and for employers to keep the keys to these grilles from their maids.

Vikram (not his real name) came to Transient Workers Count Too regarding an injury for which his boss was reluctant to provide proper medical care. But that’s not what this story is about.

Just to make sure that at least other aspects of his working life were in order, we asked about the regularity of his wages, and whether they had been fairly calculated. He gave us a complicated answer, which took us a while to understand, except for one bit: “Last two year back, one month, my salary two hundred dollar, less.”  Translated, he meant to say: there was one month two years ago when my salary was less than two hundred dollars.

How on earth can anyone survive earning so little? you ask. How on earth does an employer get away with paying this amount for someone who works an average of 10 – 11 hours a day? But that’s not what this story is about either.

Incredulous, you ask: You mean, there’s something worse?

Yes.

Vikram showed us two pay slips, the first from a month in the third quarter of 2010, and the second from a month in the third quarter of 2011. We can’t reproduce them here because they contain too many personal details such as his bank account number. But in the image below, you’ll see fragments of the pay slips in the background. The numbers are shown but some details (in blue) are best not revealed in full, again to protect his identity.

The first thing you may notice is that his total working hours were 323 in the particular month of 2010 and 349 in the particular month of 2011.

This violates the law. The Employment Act stipulates that the working week shall consist of up to 44 hours of normal time. Furthermore, Section 38(5) says:

“An employee shall not be permitted to work overtime for more than 72 hours a month.”

Each month averages 4.35 weeks, which thus means 191.4 normal hours. Add in the maximum of 72 overtime hours, and the grand total is 263.4 hours. But Vikram worked over 300 hours in both the months shown.

The law is there for a reason. Workers who are fatigued are liable to make mistakes, or get drowsy on the job. Industrial accidents become more likely.

It is also apparent that the company uses a standard hourly rate without distinguishing whether they are normal, overtime or Sunday hours. Once again, this appears to flout the law.

However, the number that really jumped at us was 500, in the deductions column. It appeared in both months’ calculations.

“Every year, we compel to cut $500,” explained Vikram, “for renewal work permit.”

On the payslip, however, it is stated as a loan made to the employee, recovered through that month’s wages.  ”But actually, I not borrow the money,” Vikram protested. “Boss cut for renewal. All workers same.”

However, in case the authorities swoop in to audit, the men were also made to sign pieces of paper acknowledging that they had indeed borrowed the $500 each month, reported Vikram. “The paper false, but what can I do?” he asked rhetorically. “If I not sign, work permit not renewal, my job finish, my boss send me back to my country.

“Which worse?”

But how much does it cost the employer to renew a work permit? A page from the Manpower Ministry’s website (link) says clearly:

Payment of fees

The following fees must be paid to complete the renewal request. You can do so using GIRO (for existing GIRO user), eNETS Credit or Debit.

Fees: Work Permit – $20 per renewal

In any case, it is illegal for employers to even recover that $20 from employees, as stated in Section 26(a) of Part II of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations, while Section 25(a) forbids receiving any consideration from the employee for renewing the work permit.

Restrictions on employer receiving or recovering moneys from foreign employee

25. Prohibited payments: An employer shall not deduct from any salary payable to a foreign employee, or demand or receive (directly or indirectly) from the foreign employee, any sum or other benefit —

(a) as consideration or as a condition for employing the foreign employee;

(b) as consideration or as a condition for continuing to employ the foreign employee; or

(c) as a financial guarantee related, in any way, to the employment of the foreign employee.

26. Payments to be borne by employer not recoverable from foreign employee: An employer shall not deduct from any salary payable to a foreign employee, or recover (directly or indirectly) from the foreign employee, in whole or in part, any of the following sums paid or payable, or any other benefit given or to be given, by the employer:

(a) fees associated with the application, issuance, renewal or reinstatement of a Work Permit;

(b) costs associated with furnishing a security deposit required by the Controller;

. . . and so on . . .

(emphasis added)

Ask the ministry, however, and, going by TWC2′s experience, the likely answer is that there is nothing they can do in a case like Vikram’s. Officials would probably point to the signed acknowledgement of a loan and say it would be impossible to prove any prosecution’s case.

Really?

Either the ministry is too defeatist, or simply not interested in doing its job.

It should be a simple matter to do a comprehensive audit of all employee records. If what Vikram says is correct — and TWC2 believes it is because we’ve heard similar stories repeatedly over the years — officials will find nearly every employee taking out “loans” of $500 around the time the workers’ work passes are up for renewal.  The pattern alone should be damning and should set up a presumption of guilt.

And if even that is too difficult to do, then just extract a few employee records and prosecute the employer for under-payment of overtime work and for flouting the maximum number of working hours. These violations are plain to see from the pay slips themselves. Then ban the company from hiring any more foreign workers.

Judging from the length of time such practices have flourished in Singapore — TWC2′s observation is that the majority of workers who have come to us over the years reported similar practices by their employers — the government’s willingness to act is the key issue.

Meanwhile, employers wishing to mint money from their employees’ work permits must find this city-state to be paradise.

In Mohamed and Bilal have gone is the story of two of 56 men laid off because their employer reportedly failed to pay the government’s foreign worker levy. When so many workers are affected, several groups of men come to Transient Workers Count Too at different times. They end up speaking to different volunteers.

So it was in this case. The same week that Mohamed and Bilal spoke with Farah for the above-mentioned article, Ear Hussin, Rony, Ali and Krishna spoke with this writer. However, there are interesting differences in the experience of these four men compared to Mohamed and Bilal, providing another angle to the story.

Ear Hussin and his friends had been in Singapore for only about four months, unlike Mohamed and Bilal who had been here for ten months. However, the four men too were supplied out to a third party, suggesting that the employer of record, Super Building Construction, didn’t have work for them on its own account.

The four who met this writer were sent to work in a galvanising factory in Jurong Industrial Estate. It was apparently a large factory, with about a hundred workers – Chinese, Indians and Bangladeshis – but only about twenty of them were supplied by Super Building.

They were happy enough working there. Ear Hussin and friends reported that their salaries were paid on time, they had proper work permits, and there was nothing to indicate that things would not go smoothly for long enough to allow them to recover the thousands of dollars in placement fees they had paid upfront to obtain work.

Then out of the blue, at the end of March, “Madam” spoke to the twenty or so men from Super Building. According to the men, “Madam”  is either the boss or a manager of the galvanising company; she is not their direct employer.

“Madam say we cannot work here anymore,” Ear Hussin recalled. “She tell us, our boss in trouble with MOM, never pay levy, now our work permit all cancel.”

“We all shock,”  added Krishna.

They quickly called someone they call Rabi, whom they knew as the boss of Super Building and their actual employer.

“At first, Rabi say there is no problem. He say work permit not cut. Any problem with MOM, he will settle,” Ear Hussin reported.

However, that there was possibly a serious problem soon became apparent when for a day or two, Rabi did not return any of their subsequent calls. They men had wanted to know whether they should continue reporting to work at the galvanising factory, and if not, where else they should go.

“We all very tension,” was how they described those two days.

Eventually, Rabi called back and confirmed the bad news. Their work permits had indeed been cancelled and they would have to go back to Bangladesh.

“How can we go back? We pay so much money to come here,” said Rony.

Monday, April 2, they all trooped down to the Ministry of Manpower, where they were put on special passes. The ministry gave the men a few weeks to find alternative employment in Singapore. Whether they will succeed is not yet clear.

The curious thing about X’s story is that he and the workers supplied to the galvanising factory had all been paid, and on time. This suggests that “Madam”  had paid Super Building for the men’s services, and Super Building should not have had a cash flow problem.

So why weren’t the levies paid? That’s the mystery.

Also mysterious is this: What happened to all the money the men had paid upfront for their jobs?

It is curious too why the galvanising factory does not hire workers on its own account if it needs workers, which it apparently does. Why does it not have work permit quotas of its own? Why do workers come in through layer after layer of recruiters and middlemen, each taking a cut? There appears to be a lot of potential for rent-seeking in Singapore’s labour policies.

This senior gentleman is scrutinising the back of Debbie Fordyce’s name card. He’s probably wondering: What exactly does this woman do? What mischief does she get up to?

Meanwhile, she’s seated less than two metres away, smiling politely, but silent as a cat on velvet – as the saying goes.

The back of the card gives little away:

The top photo was taken in Bangladesh, where Debbie, our executive committee member was touring, together with her sister. Taking the opportunity to visit some of the workers whom she had met and helped through the Cuff Road Project (TWC2′s free meals programme), she was at Masud’s house that day.

Masud’s father was there, as was the 88-year-old gentleman pictured above – his father’s friend.

“He had served in the civil service during the colonial times,” she recalled on her return to Singapore. And being from that generation, “he lets slide off his tongue such delightful sayings as ‘fine words butter no parsnips’.” She’s still amused as she remembers the occasion.

But why was she tightlipped? Why was she pirouetting on a few fine words?

Masud had been seriously injured while he was working in Singapore, and TWC2 had been his lifeline. However, workers who have been cheated or injured are often guarded about what they tell their families. Partly, they don’t want to  worry their loved ones, but partly too, as Debbie explains: “These are men who are supposed to return with glory and wealth. Never did they imagine that they might have to resort to free food provided by a charity while they wait for months – even years in the case of injuries – for their cases to be settled. This is hardly fitting for strong young men in whom their families’ hopes lay, men who had sold family assets or borrowed to pay the fees to obtain jobs in Singapore.”

Even when they have finally gone home, sometimes with an all-too-obvious permanent disability after an accident, “they may say nothing about the injury or the deception they suffered, let alone the difficulty they faced finding a place to stay when the employer has tossed them out.” Or, for that matter, the indignity of being penniless, unable even to feed themselves or find spare change for transport for the regular MOM (Ministry of Manpower) visits and hospital appointments.

Adds Debbie: “They wouldn’t want to talk about the loneliness, the occasional illegal jobs, the worn-out clothing, the bedbugs, and [being at the mercy of] seemingly capricious decisions of MOM.” That’s in the past, and members of TWC2, when visiting, will want to respect the custom. Discretion is the better part of valour. “Masud would not want to put too fine a point on how I came to know him.”

Here is Masud and his wife, ecstatic at the privilege of hosting two visitors from afar to his home:

Others in the neighbourhood became curious too, gathering around the visitors for a group photograph. Many of them work in the garment factory in the vicinity; Masud himself rents out four rooms of his house (visible behind the laundry line) to families of the garment workers.

Yet, all is not rustic bliss. The land around has become barren; the villagers believe the garment factory is polluting the area with its dyes and chemicals. One cannot help but wonder about the quality of the water supply.

The perils of greedy capitalism visit their lives still.

Employers will be  paying $75 to put them through a one-day course, roughly double what employers are currently paying for the entry test and the four-hour Safety Awareness Course (SAC). The SAC has now been incorporated into the new SIP.

The new programme will be available in English, Indonesian, Tagalog and the Myanmar language.

The newspaper reported that the SIP is being offered by Grace Management & Consultancy Services, in partnership with the Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Skills Training, and ECON Careskill Training Centre. They were chosen by the Ministry of Manpower from 12 applicants.

The news story also mentioned that currently, there are 206,000 domestic workers in Singapore.

A sidebar to the Straits Times story gave details of the course content:

What will be taught

Introduction to Singapore: Maids will learn more about amenities, such as markets, clinics, banks and the transportation system, and the different races and religions.

Safety: They will be taught how to hang laundry and clean windows safely and how to use common electrical appliances. They will also get tips on personal safety, crime prevention and road safety.

Conditions of work permit: Maids will be told about their responsibilities and rights as well as their employers’ responsibilities. They will also be informed that illegal deployment and employment violate the work permit conditions.

Relationship and stress management: Besides finding out how to identify the causes and symptoms of stress, they will learn how to manage it and build a good relationship with employers

This was reported in the Straits Times on April 14, 2012. Lim, who is also a minister without portfolio, added, “I, as secretary-general, feel that we need to get everybody to shift their attention… what we really, really need is to apply our minds to productivity, innovation and skills.”

He said employers tell NTUC that to solve their manpower shortage, they need more foreign workers. This excessive focus that employers and workers have on foreign workers is a “roadblock” in the drive to raise productivity.

Union leaders, on the other hand, say that for wages to go up, the number of foreign workers needs to be reduced — the newspaper reported him as saying.

Last November, Minister of State for Manpower Tan Chuan-jin involved himself personally in a raid conducted against substandard accommodation for foreign workers. In a Facebook post, the minister described the conditions he saw as “abysmal.”

I visited Mohamed’s and Bilal’s house before they were sent home to Bangladesh this week – they told me they were crammed there with 28 other workers. I wanted to see for myself how bad the living conditions were, so I hopped on a train to meet him.

Strictly speaking, it wasn’t their house. It was where their employer had put them in.

The single lavatory and bathroom were beyond filthy. Cooking and eating were done on the floor.

“We share bed mats and towels,” says one of the men. As they work shifts, there are never more than 15 of them at home at any one time, except of course on Sundays and holidays, when all 30 of them shower and use the toilet in the facilities we’ve documented in the video above and image reel below.

The crowding and sharing present health issues: they mention anecdotally that if one man picks up a bug or virus, it’s more than likely to move quickly through the dorm. The risk, however, is not confined to them. The house is merely an incubator for diseases that can spread into the general population.

Except for the bunks shown (and a double bed for the company driver), in the other rooms are a line of pillows with floormats that advertise the Singapore Youth Olympics, a nice reminder of how the other two thirds of this city live.

The highlight of my visit, however, were the wall decorations, if you could call them that. They look like blood splatter. Had there been homicide or blunt force trauma here?

“Bed bug,” the men say. And so they are —  blood stains where the men have caught and killed bed bugs. Masking tape, they tell me, is the best way to trap them — each bed mat has it skirting along the sides.

This is like a scene from a slasher film.

From the group conversation I had with the men (just 12 of them were in tonight), they said there was a steady rotation of people arriving to stay as other workers were sent home. They were cramped, constantly moving around within each other’s space and living like caged animals.

Nothing is private here — they have none of the amenities we take for granted: warm water, internet access or a washing machine. The privacy that we debate, is a luxury they can hardly imagine. All 30 men have to hand wash their clothes and hang them around the room; it is damp and parts of the walls are clearly suffering from rot.

But today, some of them you see were also pretty desperate. For them, this will only be home for a few more days. Their company has terminated them and they are to be repatriated. As awful as conditions are, they would rather stay than be sent home. See Mohamed and Bilal have gone: 56 workers to follow as company is sanctioned by MOM

Minister Chuan-jin was right, it is “abysmal” — these are sub-human conditions delivered upon men who are regarded — and often treated — as sub-human. Before I leave, one of the men in this dorm brings out a cooking pot — it is the only one in the kitchen. They can’t afford any other kitchen equipment.

Singapore is one of Asia’s wealthiest countries and it has stubbornly resisted the financial crisis to position itself as a hub of Asia’s growth ambitions. But quietly, around the back, the men who are sweating blood to create that reality are living in abhorrent, third-world conditions.

Unimaginable extravagance sits quite comfortably next to unthinkable poverty.

—

More video: bed bugs

Image reel: