It is a very simple ethical responsibility: if a State requires a foreigner to remain within the country for the State’s purpose, e.g. by seizing his or her passport, then the State should be responsible for ensuring that this person has basic dignity and the necessities for life: housing, meals, healthcare and an income commensurate with what he or she might otherwise be able to earn.
It is wrong – plain and simple – for a State to demand that a foreigner remain stranded in Singapore and then leave the person to fend for himself, all the while denying him a chance to earn a living.
This research report looks into situations where that happens.
Migrant workers who find themselves subjects of investigations by the Police or other authorities not only have trouble navigating the justice system in an unfamiliar language, they also face a sudden loss of employment. As a result, they are often barely able to afford daily subsistence or accommodation. Former employers are generally not obliged to provide any support during the lengthy periods – which can stretch to months and years – when these workers are required to remain in Singapore to assist with investigations or await court hearings.
Individuals caught in such a quandary may not be numerous, but are still a significant group living life on the far margins.
In the third quarter of 2024, we interviewed twenty men who were being assisted by TWC2. The men received various forms of assistance from us: rent, food, transport subsidies, etc. Whilst these helped with their daily sustenance issues, for other issues more directly related to the investigations themselves, TWC2 was not in a position to intervene beyond putting them in touch with the pro-bono lawyer scheme.
Nevertheless, because we had such regular contact with these clients over the long period of waiting, we could find out what the issues and pain points were from their perspective. From our interviews, we distilled three broad findings:
Firstly, we heard troubling responses regarding inadequate procedural standards during the investigation process and justice system, particularly access and quality of interpretation services, issues surrounding the right to counsel and access to pro-bono services, and timely communication with case updates. These areas contributed to a common perception we observed amongst the interviewed workers that the investigation process and justice system are difficult to navigate and raise questions as to whether access to justice has been compromised.
Secondly, we unearthed opportunities for the disproportionate influence of employers, law enforcement authorities, lawyers and/or bailors over migrant workers, which entrench power asymmetries. The Investigation Officer is often expected to be the same person who has to provide social and sustenance support to the worker, dealing with workers’ queries over housing, access to temporary jobs and so on. Does this create a conflict of interest? Access to legal representation seem rather ad hoc, and the already weak bargaining power (and lack of financial resources) of migrant workers can create a power imbalance which some unethical lawyers, hired by workers on commercial terms, can exploit. Bailors suddenly gain huge power over the day-to-day lives of workers. In instances where the worker does not immediately lose his job after being put under investigation, his employer has added power because the worker will have lost his right to go home; if the worker has to stay in Singapore, he needs work and he is acutely aware that if he loses his current job, he will have a very hard time finding another one with the cloud of investigation hanging over him.
But the great majority of our interviewees didn’t even have employment. This leads to our third finding: these workers had to deal with very marginal and precarious livelihoods. The majority of our interviewees had no access to work and regular income, without which, getting accommodation was a nightmare. Formal avenues of social support seem reluctant to help, perhaps out of prejudice against anyone put under suspicion. In this regard, we hasten to add that some workers in this group are not even accused persons but victims or witnesses required by the State to remain in Singapore.
Following from the above findings, our report concludes with a few recommendations that, we will admit, are far from exhaustive since these are complex issues. Nonetheless, it is important to draw attention to the many gaps in various public agencies’ systems. The individuals involved are humans, and just because someone somewhere had cast suspicion against them, triggering an investigation, is no reason to put them out of our minds and let them rot.
The full report (27 pages, PDF) can be found by clicking on the icon at right.