Blessed imprisonment

Rari Sumon’s ‘cell’ at Central Green Condominium. He was instructed by his boss and MOM not to leave this place, with only a few exceptions.

Section 340 of the Penal Code says:

Wrongful confinement
340. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

It’s a serious matter as can be seen from the penalty stipulated in Section 342:

Punishment for wrongful confinement
342. Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

In this story, we will recall the experience of an injured Bangladeshi worker named Rari Sumon. In particular, we focus on the actions of the employer and the MOM officials who attended to his complaint that he was being confined in unacceptable accommodation and had not been given money for food.

After injuring his back and after his Work Permit expired on 4 July 2023, Rari Sumon was placed on a Special Pass to legitimise his stay in Singapore while his medical treatment continued. His injury compensation claim was also pending. In the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations 2012, Fourth Schedule, Sections 11A and 11B, the responsibilities of the employer or former employer with respect to a migrant worker after the end of the permit but before repatriation, are spelled out:

11A. Except as the Controller specifies otherwise in writing, the employer is responsible for —
(a) the upkeep and maintenance of the foreign employee in Singapore, including the provision of adequate food and medical treatment; and
(b) bearing the costs of such upkeep and maintenance.

11B. The employer shall ensure that the foreign employee has acceptable accommodation in Singapore. Such accommodation must be in accordance with the requirements in any written law, directive, guideline, circular or other similar instrument issued by any competent authority.

In this account to follow, the actions of the employer appear to be on the wrong side of law. Rari Sumon brought the matter to TWC2 several times and we wrote to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) highlighting them. The actions of the ministry officials are also troubling. On the generous side, one could characterise their actions as ineffective. On the less generous side, one could characterise some of their actions as abetment of an offence.

Preceding events

We will first describe some preceding events. They’re not the main thrust of this story, but the timeline helps colour in the context with respect to the attitude and behaviour of the employer.

Rari Sumon suffered a back injury on 24 May 2023. He went to Tan Tock Seng Hospital to seek treatment. There he was prescribed medical leave, and given follow-up appointments to check on his progress.

Rari Sumon first came to TWC2 for this problem on 12 June 2023, at which point, his case didn’t seem to be unusually complicated. Through the month of June, his main issue was that the employer was refusing to reimburse him for his hospital expenses or pay him for his medical leave days.

This simple statement on MOM’s website, based on provisions in the Employment Act, makes clear:

Medical reimbursements and salary during sick leave
If you take paid sick leave, your employer must pay you your salary. Your employer must also reimburse you for medical consultation fees if your MC was issued by a medical practitioner from a public institution or appointed by your company.

(The details are in Section 89 of the Employment Act)

TWC2 helped him raise this matter with MOM. We believe MOM contacted the boss.

On the night of Sunday, 9 July 2023, a crisis developed. At around 11pm, boss Peter came to the company dormitory at Lower Delta Road. According to Rari Sumon, the boss said that since his Work Permit had expired (4 July), the company would repatriate him after paying him his medical leave wages and reimbursing him for his doctor expenses.

Rari Sumon then replied that he would only go home if a doctor was able to certify him to have recovered. Naturally, this did not go down well with boss Peter who told him that he was to leave the Lower Delta Road dorm forthwith. Rari Sumon then packed his bags and made arrangements to stay with a friend near Harbourfront. Rari Sumon left for Harboufront by bus.

Around 00:30am (early hours Monday), as Rari Sumon was making his way from the bus stop to his friend’s place, boss Peter caught up with him – we’re not sure how Peter knew where he was going. Peter confronted Rari Sumon and demanded that he sign a blank page in a notebook. Rari Sumon refused, as anybody should.

Why would a boss want a worker to sign a blank piece of paper? Obviously, we cannot know for sure what the intention of this particular boss was, but TWC2 has seen many similar cases. Typically the signed blank page is later converted into a letter (ostensibly by the worker) admiting that the injury was not work-related and/or he would be withdrawing the injury claim.

Not getting a signed blank page, Peter then video’d Rari Sumon, speaking into his own video that this worker would be going back (to Bangladesh). Again Rari Sumon refused to agree. Rari then started recording Peter’s voice on his phone voice recorder. Peter then snatched Rari’s phone and went into his car, saying he would return the phone only if Rari agreed to repatriation. Peter then drove the car slowly, door open. Rari walked alongside the car.

Section 383 of the Penal Code lays out the criminal offence of extortion, punishable by imprisonment of not less than two years and not more than seven years and with caning:

Extortion
383. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any harm to that person or to any other person, in body, mind, reputation or property, whether such harm is to be caused legally or illegally, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.

Since, the previous month, Rari Sumon had lodged a formal work injury compensation claim and he was also scheduled for additional medical consultations, the employer would have known that future liabilities were a real prospect. The law makes it clear that when there is a case pending, a worker cannot be repatriated by the employer, so the only way repatriation can be effected would be if Rari withdrew the case and agreed to forgo future treatment.

This act of the employer taking away his phone and demanding in exchange that Rari agree to repatriation and sign on a blank piece of paper smells of extortion. The victim is put in fear of loss of valuable property, and the perpetrator is aiming to obtain from Rari something “signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security”, namely the avoidance of future liabilities.

While in the car, boss Peter deleted the recording that Rai had made of Peter’s demands. Rari said that some other pictures and documents were also deleted.

Section 425 of the Penal Code lays out the offence of Mischief, which is punishable by imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both:

Mischief
425. Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property, or in the situation thereof, as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.

Around then, Rari Sumon’s friend called and asked why Rari hadn’t reached the room. Peter took the call, telling the friend that Rari’s Work Permit had expired and he had to go home. Peter then video’d Rari again, demanding agreement to repatriation. Again Rari Sumon refused.

Finally Peter returned the phone and Rari made his way to his friend’s room about 1:30am.

On 10 July 2024, assisted by TWC2 volunteers, Rari Sumon made a police report about the incident with boss Peter. An email was also sent to MOM. We do not know if any action was taken against the boss for such intimidating behaviour.

It was not possible for Rari Sumon to stay with his friend for more than a night. TWC2 housed him for a few days while the eviction from the Lower Delta Road dorm was reported to MOM. The employer, on MOM’s insistence, then arranged new accommodation for Rari.

The ‘prison cell’

The header picture shows Rari’s new “room”. He reported that it was just a store-room in an apartment in Central Green Condominium.

The space was just large enough for a mattress. There was no window. He had nowhere to store his valuables securely. Worst of all, a drainpipe ran through the room and the frequent sound of water rushing down that pipe made it nearly impossible to sleep properly.

The inferior accommodation arrangements are the nub of this story.

The existing dorm standards, which MOM itself acknowledges is inadequate and thus slated for improvement, calls for 3.5 square metres of living space per person. The improved standard, which will not be fully rolled out until 2040, calls for 4.2 square metres. The store room in which Rari Sumon was put does not look to us to be 3.5 square metres. On Rari’s request, we wrote to MOM about the cramped space.

On 24 July 2023, Rari spoke to TWC2 again. He reported that three MOM officers, along with his employer, came to his “room” earlier that day. MOM officers, he said, then told him to continue sleeping in that space, and added that he had to follow his employer’s instructions, which was that he should not leave the apartment except to go out to buy lunch, and each time he was to return within an hour.

“This is like prison,” he said.

We noted that Rari was extremely distressed over this turn of events. He saw the MOM officials as little more than prison wardens doing his abusive employer’s bidding.

The employer reinforced his confinement with a message in which he said (based on Rari Sumon’s report to TWC2) that

“According to MOM, you are allowed to go out for the following purpose only:

1. buy food (1 hr)
2. go MOM renew special pass
3. medical appointment (17/08)
4. mosque (once/week, 1hr/once)”

As noted above, confinement of another person against his will is a criminal offence. Especially when an MOM officer reinforces the employer’s actions, this becomes a matter of public interest. Even if no explicit mention was made about the consequences should Rari disobey, it would be obvious that consequences there would be, since MOM is a regulatory authority with enormous powers over his future prospects in Singapore. The deployment of such implicit State power in aid of an employer’s unreasonable confinement of a worker is unacceptable.

The matter dragged on for weeks more with no improvement. It was compounded by another issue: the employer was not giving Rari money to buy food. Employers’ responsibility to workers on Special Passes include meals.

So, here was an employer criminally confining a worker (see Penal Code section 340 above) and, on the face of it, with MOM’s blessing. The employer was prepared to let Rari starve by not fulfilling his responsibility over food. TWC2’s emails to MOM apparently produced no result; we didn’t even get replies for four emails in a row.

Gave up

Eventually, Rari just gave up. The last we heard from him, he told us he was agreeing to withdraw his injury claim in return for a private settlement with his boss. He just wanted to get out of jail.

Here’s the next question: Did Rari Sumon get full rehabilitation and just compensation for the injury? Or did the wheels of power thwart his right to a fair outcome?

On 17 May 2024, MOM published a response on its website saying that this article contained “inaccuracies and misinformation” and that our article had “cast aspersions on the professionalism and integrity of MOM officers.” Nothing we wrote was false. Instead, what MOM seems to prefer is that the inconvenient truths we told in the story be treated as untrue and thus excluded. The public’s assessment of the professionalism and integrity of civil servants should depend on a transparent account of their actions, and not on a highly-edited narrative with inconvenient truths excised.

MOM wrote: “In the article, TWC2 claimed that MOM officers had instructed Rari to continue living in cramped conditions and reinforced his employer’s restrictive instructions on his movements. This is untrue.”

What is untrue?

Did MOM not instruct Rari Sumon to continue staying in the store room? If MOM had said he was free to leave, he would have done so, since he felt imprisoned there. That he did not leave must surely indicate that he was given to understand that he had no choice in the matter.

Or is MOM trying to say it was untrue to describe the room as cramped? Our story included a photograph of the space where Rari Sumon was told to stay in, which readers can see was little more than the size of a mattress.

Or is MOM trying to say that it was untrue that movement restrictions had been placed on him. Our story above described a very specific message from the employer to Rari, citing MOM’s endorsement of movement restrictions. We now image that message here.

It is astounding how MOM attemtps these denials, instead accusing TWC2 of “untrue” statements. Contemporaneous emails tell a different story:

On 4 July 2023, TWC2 wrote to MOM on the worker Rari Sumon’s behalf, saying “his employer only allows him to leave his lodging each day for two hours of errands before prohibiting him from doing so again. This has caused him a lot of stress because he feels restricted in his lodging.”.

On 18 July 2023, we wrote to MOM again, saying, “He further asserts that he is not permitted to leave the condo unit by his employer other than to buy his food. She questions him extensively even while he is only leaving for an hour to eat, leading Mr. Sumon to claim that he cannot even have a proper lunch outdoors.

“Mr. Sumon is experiencing great stress as a result of being forced to sleep in such a small area and having his mobility limited.

“He seeks MOM’s assistance to speak to the employer to arrange a decent sleeping space for him and to avoid placing too many restrictions on his mobility.”

On 28 July 2023, TWC2 wrote to MOM once more saying, “Mr Rari Sumon’s employer is housing him in the civil defence shelter/utility room of a private condominium unit. The room has a fan but no natural ventilation. There is also a waste pipe with the sound of water running very audibly throughout the day/night.

“Despite a recent visit/inspection by MOM officers following our feedback, the MOM officers appear to have no issues with Mr Rari Sumon sleeping in a room with such conditions. They have also endorsed the employer’s restrictions on his movement – allowing him to leave the condo only two hours a day to buy food.”

In these emails, we told MOM that the employer had been placing movement restrictions on Rari Sumon, and the MOM officers have apparently endorsed the employer’s attempt at control. We did not get any reply from MOM to our emails directly addressing these points.

That Rari Sumon, through TWC2, kept raising these issues of movement restrictions and his inability to change living arrangements can only indicate that the powers above him endorsed these very conditions and restrictions. For MOM to now deny that they had no role in that is hard to believe.

Now we see MOM, in its 17 May 2024 response, saying “MOM had also confirmed with Rari’s employer that there were no movement restrictions imposed on him. Rari’s employer had only requested Rari to notify him when he left the premises.”

We don’t know when MOM “confirmed with Rari’s employer” (left unclear from MOM’s statement).” We hope this enquiry to Rari Sumon’s employer was not only made after our article was published. It would be easy to make such denials after the fact. But, if that’s not the case, and that this enquiry was put to the employer way back in July 2023 when we wrote three times to MOM about it (and if the employer denied it then), why didn’t MOM reply to TWC2 saying so? Why the email silence then?

Furthermore, why is MOM’s enquiry only put to the employer (whether then or now)? Why didn’t MOM ask Rari Sumon whether he was suffering from restrictions? The worker’s point of view should be part of the assessment of the situation. Employers’ denials should not be taken at face value.

MOM wrote in its response, “MOM had conducted a well-being check with Rari, and explained his employer’s instructions to him. During the well-being check, Rari did not raise any food, housing, or salary issues. Neither did he raise any concerns involving his employer.”

Is MOM also adopting the stance that they didn’t know about the housing issues and movement restrictions because Rari didn’t speak up when MOM officers visited?

Rari didn’t need to. We believe the visit was made only because TWC2 had raised these issues in our emails.

Regarding the cramped space and having to sleep next to a drainpipe with the sound of falling water disturbing his sleep, MOM in its response said, “MOM had assessed Rari’s accommodation to be acceptable, and in accordance with the existing regulations.”

What did we write in our story?  We wrote that the worker told TWC2 “that three MOM officers, along with his employer, came to his “room” earlier that day. MOM officers, he said, then told him to continue sleeping in that space…” Implicitly, we were reporting that the MOM officers had assessed the space to be fit for habitation – exactly as MOM now says was the case. We cannot be accused of inaccuracy or misinformation.

MOM may now feel it embarrassing that they judged the space as fit for habitation, but embarrassment is no reason to accuse us of inaccuracy when that was what we described as MOM’s position at the time.

Instead, what we were saying, and we reiterate now, is that MOM was wrong to make that finding. Even based on MOM’s own standards for worker accommodation, the store room assigned to Sumon was below minimum standards.

There is nothing inaccurate or misleading in our article. On the contrary, in trying to paint TWC2 in such terms, MOM is opening itself up to an accusation that it is trying to whitewash the role their officers played in those crucial months.