A worker’s payslip for August-September shows he worked nearly 106 overtime hours in that month

In Singapore, low-wage workers are protected from excess overtime. It is an offence for an employer to make their low-wage manual labourers work more than 12 hours in one day, including overtime or 72 overtime hours per month [footnote 1]. These rules exist to protect the welfare of vulnerable groups of workers [footnote 2]. Long hours of work lead to the likelihood of industrial accidents and a toll on workers’ mental and physical health [footnote 3]. For low-wage migrants like work permit holders, high indebtedness and employers’ state-granted power to refuse worker’s right to change employers put them at a higher risk of abuse from employers’ demand for long work hours. Given these challenges, do these overtime rules truly protect low-wage workers?

The rule that no employee should be asked to work more than 12 hours a day implies that, after eight normal hours (covered by basic salary) no employee should be asked to work more than four extra hours.

The same worker worked nearly 105 overtime hours in the September-October period.

The additional rule that no employee shall be asked to work more than 72 overtime hours in a month does not allow 4 extra hours every day. Doing so would far exceed the 72-hour limit. The graphic below illustrates the maximum overtime an employee can be asked to do across a 31-day month, if evenly spread over the days.

Simplified model of maximum overtime that hits the ceiling of 72 OT hours a month

Since 1996, employers can apply to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for exemption from this overtime limit rule (i.e., Overtime Exemption or “OTE”) [footnote 4]. An OTE is intended for short-term needs and requires written consent from all affected workers, besides approval from MOM. It is also subject to strict eligibility criteria such as workplace safety records. An OTE is not available for high-risk occupations such as construction equipment operators [footnote 5]. For the Security Industry, an OTE allowed an increment of the maximum overtime limit from 72 to 95 hours [footnote 6]. It is unclear whether the 95-hour limit for OTE also applies to other industries.

MOM has acknowledged that overtime pay is an “integral part” of low-wage workers’ income; however, it is neither desirable nor sustainable for these workers to be working long hours without limit. To address excessive overtime, uplifting wages has been suggested as a solution in parallel to continuing enforcement efforts [footnote 7]. In 2021, the OTE was removed from the security industry while the Progressive Wage Model was enhanced for the same [footnote 8]. 

TWC2 welcomes the removal of OTE from the security industry and concurs with MOM’s view that excess overtime is unsustainable. We note the last statement in the Factsheet on Overtime Exemption for Security Industry that “for safety reasons, overtime exemptions are not granted for high-risk vocations, such as those which involve operations of heavy machinery.” However, this raises the question: why does MOM not extend the same watchfulness and protection to other industries which also use heavy machinery and with similar or higher industrial accident rates? According to MOM’s Workplace Safety and Health Report in 2020 and 2023, many industries, such as Construction, Manufacturing, and Marine, had higher workplace injury rates than security & investigation activities [footnote 9].  

Rate of workplace major injuries per 100,000 workers by industry/work activity [footnote 10]

Seven workers with excessive overtime

Our survey in 2016 found that two-thirds of migrant construction workers were likely to be working over 72 hours of overtime per month. For this article, we focused on seven work permit holders from different companies and industries who consistently exceeded the 72-hour overtime limit for three or more consecutive months without OTE [footnote 11]. (see table below) For instance, a worker, H, whose primary role at work was spraying a chemical powder coat, worked from 7:30 am to midnight daily, clocking an average of 163 overtime hours per month — more than double the legal limit. H described the gruelling hours as both physically and mentally exhausting, severely impacting his well-being.

For all seven workers,  it appears that none of their employers had obtained MOM’s approval for OTE. For instance, obtaining an OTE requires written consent from the workers, yet none of the seven recalled giving such consent. Each had worked over 95 overtime hours a month at some point. What’s more concerning, however, are the indications that the employers attempted to conceal these excessive overtime hours: For all but one worker, S, the overtime hours were grossly understated on their payslips, often showing figures well below the legal limit of 72 hours. In the case of worker K, overtime hours were reported as zero for several months. Worker S, on the other hand, did not receive any payslips at all. For workers L, H, R, M, and G, their employers concealed part of the overtime pay by labelling it under disguised terms such as “allowance” or “incentive.”

These workers are not alone in enduring excessive overtime. Nearly all of the seven reported that their coworkers worked similar hours, indicating that they represent just the tip of the iceberg. This suggests a much larger number of workers who have either worked or continue to work excessive overtime, pointing to a widespread issue.

Overtime hours and payments for seven workers

Enforcement

While our experience shows that this problem clearly occurs among low-wage migrant workers, particularly in the construction industry, information on MOM’s enforcement efforts remains limited. Given the lack of publicly available government data, a quick Google search revealed the following:

  • Between 2008 and 2011, 260 employers were found to have violated the overtime limit rules.  Of these, 56 employers received penalties of composition fines for breaching the rules, and 21 were prosecuted for more serious offences. [footnote 12]
  • More recently, between January 2022 and 18 July 2024, 14 companies were convicted and fined for exceeding overtime limits—13 from the security industry and just one from the construction industry [footnote 13].

Only one employer in the construction industry has been convicted for flouting excess overtime rules for the past three years, and an average of 14 employers were dealt with composition fines annually between 2008 and 2011. This raises concerns about the sufficiency of enforcement.

A composition fine of a few thousand dollars [footnote 14] seems unlikely to deter employers if violating overtime regulations continues to be more profitable. Some employers might even choose to ignore the rules and consider the fines a risk worth taking if they are only penalised when “unlucky” enough to be caught.

The absence of a political voice for construction and other blue-collar employees, who are predominantly foreigners, stands in stark contrast to the security employees, who are mostly Singaporeans and Permanent Residents. This disparity underscores a critical issue when evaluating Singapore’s responsibility toward migrant workers. Excessive overtime among migrant workers in construction and other industries seems overlooked, while security employees enjoy stronger protections despite lower industrial accident rates. This highlights an uneven approach to worker rights across industries and nationality.

We recommend the following changes:

1. MOM should enhance its enforcement of the 72-hour overtime limit and ensure that penalties for violations are transparent, creating a stronger deterrent for employers. Employers caught flouting overtime regulations should face stricter consequences, such as being barred from hiring foreign workers.

2. MOM should also enhance its enforcement against employers’ failure to provide payslips and keep proper work records, for example, by conducting random payroll audits.

3. Additionally, MOM should allow the transfer of work permit holders if they (1) have been subjected to illegal overtime or (2) have been dismissed for refusing to work beyond legal limits. This would encourage workers to report their employers’ illegal practices, knowing they would be given permission to transfer. Currently, if a worker is dismissed for refusing to work illegal overtime, their only remedy is filing a wrongful dismissal claim with TADM. Even if the claim succeeds, the worker’s ability to transfer jobs without being repatriated depends entirely on the employer’s consent.

4. To further strengthen protection, TADM should establish an automatic reporting system for their mediators to flag suspected illegal overtime cases that surface during employment dispute mediations. This would create a direct link between dispute resolution and law enforcement, ensuring that illegal practices are swiftly dealt with.

Singapore has a duty of care to all workers, migrant or local, and the duty to migrant workers must not be overlooked, not only because of the moral obligation to acknowledge their significant contributions—building Singapore’s iconic skyline and world-class infrastructure—but also because of Singapore’s commitment to the rule of law. In a nation that prides itself on legal protections and fairness, everyone should be safeguarded under the law. If we allow unscrupulous employers to exploit low-wage migrant workers and turn a blind eye, we fail to uphold the very legal safeguards we have promised them. By doing so, we compromise the integrity of our legal system and the values of fairness and justice we stand for.

1. Employment Act 1968, s 38(5).

2. Hossain Rakib v Ideal Design & Build Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 166, [51].

3. Philip Tucker and Simon Folkard ‘Working Time, Health and Safety: a Research Synthesis Paper’ (International Labour Organization 2012) (<https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@travail/documents/publication/wcms_181673.pdf>

4. Employment Act 1968, s 41A; 270 employers, were exempted from this overtime limit rule through MOM’s approval between 2008 and 2011: ‘OVERTIME EXEMPTIONS FOR SECURITY GUARD AGENCIES’ <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=053_20070521_S0009_T0009>.

5. ‘WORK ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH OVERTIME EXEMPTION WILL NOT BE GRANTED’ (MOM) <https://www.mom.gov.sg/-/media/mom/documents/employment-practices/work-activities-where-ot-exemption-will-not-be-granted.pdf; ‘OVERTIME EXEMPTIONS FOR SECURITY GUARD AGENCIES’ <https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/topic?reportid=053_20070521_S0009_T0009>

6. ‘Private Security Industry (Amendment) Bill – Wrap-Up Speech by Mr Desmond Tan, Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment’ <https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/private-security-industry-amendment-bill-wrap-up-speech/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20is%20the,at%2072%20hours%20per%20month.>.

7. ‘Oral Answer by Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, Acting Minister for Manpower & Senior Minister of State, National Development, to Parliamentary Question on Exemptions from Employment Act with regard to overtime work’ <https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/parliament-questions-and-replies/2012/oral-answer-by-mr-tan-chuanjin-acting-minister-for-manpower–senior-minister-of-state-national-development-to-parliamentary-question-on-exemptions-from-employment-act-with-regard-to-overtime-work>

8. ‘Factsheet on Overtime Exemption for Security Industry’ <https://www.mom.gov.sg/-/media/mom/documents/speeches/2019/0724-factsheet-on-ote-for-security-industry.pdf>.

9. Rate of work place majour injuries for 2023 was 18.7 per 100,000 for the secrutiy and investigation activities while it was 28.5 for the constrction industry, 35.1 for the manufacturing industry, and 35.3 for the marine industry:‘Workplace Safety and Health Report 2023’, 55 <https://www.mom.gov.sg/-/media/mom/documents/safety-health/reports-stats/wsh-national-statistics/wsh-national-stats-2023.pdf>.

10. ‘Workplace Safety and Health Report 2023’, 55 <https://www.mom.gov.sg/-/media/mom/documents/safety-health/reports-stats/wsh-national-statistics/wsh-national-stats-2023.pdf>.

11. TWC2 was able to determine their overtime hours and payment with high accuracy thanks to all the evidence provided by the employers and gathered by the workers through the salary claims process.

12. Contravention of Overtime Work Limits (2012)
<https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-129> accessed 6 October 2024.

13. ‘Employers convicted under the Employment Act’, https://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/employers-convicted-under-employment-act#/>

14. Maximum fine is $5,000. See Employment Act, s 53.

Header picture:10582, L:5949, H:5588, K:15411, R:15217, M:15081, G:14712, S:14829.