Musa and his co-worker Akkas returned to Dhaka on 10 March 2022, after being charged, found guilty and incarcerated for working illegally in Singapore without a valid Work Permit. Their story is told here: Two men broke our laws, sent to jail. Both men were advised by TWC2 not to attempt to return to work in Singapore as the prison record would make them ineligible to re-enter as a migrant workers.
The two men kept asking though. TWC2 volunteers told them both during their trial and in a video call while they were in detention awaiting their repatriation not to even try. They asked the judge who presided at their trial, and she said that decision would have to be made by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). Yet, on enquiry, MOM was cautious in their response, writing, “…we will not be able to comment whether administrative actions such as debarment from future employment, will be imposed on the two subjects.” An ICA officer told them told them that to return to Singapore, their employer or sponsor would require a letter of special permission from the ICA.
Any answer short of an unequivocal “No” gave them hope.
Their former boss Mr S, while not condoning their moonlighting, neither did he find it problematic: They were always available for their regular work, he said, never missing a day or turning up late. He understood their need to earn more as he was seldom able to provide overtime. He describes them as being good men and good workers.
Mr S applied for Musa to come again to work for the same company. He understood that the approval might not be granted, but when the approval came, he took that to mean that the criminal charge was either overlooked or was not a disqualifying factor.
Musa received his In-Principle Approval (IPA) in early June. He asked Mr S if special permission had been given and Mr S replied that it was not necessary. Mr S assumed that MOM was aware of Musa’s record when they approved the IPA. It was, after all, MOM’s prosecution branch which had led the charges against the two workers.
Mr S told Musa to work with his ‘agent’ in Dhaka and arrange his own ticket and quarantine cost. Although Musa knew this expense should be borne by the employer, he took on those costs himself as he was grateful for the opportunity to return to work. In addition to the two days’ quarantine in Dhaka and the one-way ticket, Musa negotiated a fee of 70,000 taka (S$2,050) with Mr S’s agent and arrived in Singapore in the early morning of 14 June. His ticket was on Malindo Air, routed Dhaka – Kuala Lumpur – Singapore. On his part, Mr S had prepared the security bond (explained in Glossary) and completed the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) online entry form. Musa saw no reason to question his documents or his approval to enter Singapore.
Flying into a hole between MOM and ICA
Upon arrival at Singapore’s Changi Airport, an ICA officer apprehended Musa, and led him to an interrogation room to inquire why he had come to Singapore. Musa showed his In-Principle Approval (IPA) issued by MOM for a Work Permit. When asked about his previous Work Permit, Musa explained his charges, his time in prison and that the case was “settled”.
To the ICA officer, it was far from settled. The ICA officer instructed Musa to call Mr S to sort out the issue with the MOM. Until this was resolved, Musa was not allowed to leave the interrogation room either to depart or to enter Singapore.
Musa was eventually transferred to another holding room at the airport. The officers held his phone to prevent him from making calls, but allowed him to answer incoming calls.
Later that evening, someone (either an ICA or Malindo Air official) told Musa that he would be boarding a 10am flight to Kuala Lumpur the next morning. This person offered no information about payment for the ticket, or how he was to make his way to Dhaka. Musa had no bank account and only S$15 cash with him.
At about 9am on 15 June, Musa was taken to a departure gate for the flight to Kuala Lumpur. He did not have a Malaysian visa as Kuala Lumpur was only a transit stop. A short while later Musa was informed that his flight time was 11:45am, but the flight was only as far as Kuala Lumpur. When Musa relayed this to a TWC2 volunteer with whom he’d been in contact, the TWC2 volunteer assisted by booking him on an onward Malindo flight from Kuala Lumpur to Dhaka that same evening. Musa received the KUL-DAC flight information and was told to show the onward ticket when he checked in for the Singapore to Kuala Lumpur flight.
The Kuala Lumpur to Dhaka ticket that TWC2 bought for Musa
Into the hole between Singapore, Malaysia and Malindo Air
The onward ticket should have solved Musa’s problems, or so we thought. On touch-down in Kuala Lumpur, he was again detained and had his passport confiscated. The explanation was that he owed S$461 for his airfare from Singapore to KL and his IP charges (Inadmissible Persons), for use of the holding room in Singapore Changi Airport. He was told that payment must be in cash by 6pm that evening. Again, Musa was not clear whether the officer demanding the cash was from the airline or from Immigration. It seems the airline was owed for the flight and Immigration was owed for the IP charges. The officer unhelpfully suggested that if he had intended to enter Singapore illegally, he should have carried more cash.
The payment issue was finally resolved with the assistance of another Bangladeshi man waiting in the Kuala Lumpur airport to be collected by his employer. Musa was then able to fly home on the evening of 16 June. The confusion and accusations in both the Singapore and Kuala Lumpur airports were an agonising end to Musa’s hopes to work again with his former employer.
Why is everything so opaque?
It is not uncommon for a worker’s application for a work permit to be refused. The reasons are not usually explained in detail, but the rejection may show that the worker has an adverse record, or that he is not being eligible for a work pass. An adverse record might result from an infringement of covid regulations, or dormitory restrictions, a stern warning, an immigration offence, or other criminal offense. Approval may also be withheld if the employer is prohibited from bring in new workers.
In Musa’s case, information about his recent conviction and prison term would have been available to MOM, especially as MOM initiated the charges against him. Ambiguous and confusing statements about eligibility gave the men false hopes about being able to work again, and encouraged them to pay to agents or fixers to take another chance.
Both Musa and Mr S would have saved time, money, and trouble if Mr S’s application had not been approved. Musa would have been spared the humiliation and trauma of his treatment in the two airports if the application had been rejected. If not for his connection with people able to pay for his first charges and purchase his onward ticket, he could well have been jailed once again for attempting an illegal entry, a crime he had no intention of committing. Better communication to workers about their ineligibility and between the ICA and MOM could have saved Musa from this terrible ordeal.