In December 2024, we published the story of a worker we called Ezzin Mollah. He had a broken tooth as a result of a work accident. The thrust of the story was about how dental treatment was delayed time and again because the employer was uncooperative about providing the hospital with letters of guarantee (LOG) which were needed before the hospital would go ahead with treatment.
On 6 March 2025, the Ministry of Manpower published a response saying our article contained “inaccuracies”, bleating about our not taking steps to “verify the accuracy of the information with MOM.” (emphasis added by us).
MOM’s statement then recounted the “facts” as they saw them. Presumably they believe those details to be true.
But here’s the funny thing: They are rather different from what our case notes say – and our case notes contain minutes of conversations we had with the worker, discussions with the hospital, together with our assessment of the hospital documents he showed to us. We do not think MOM actually possesses the “facts” to the extent that we do. There’s not much utility there.
Interestingly, MOM’s own statement contains internal contradictions. For example, “On 28 May 2024, [Ezzin Mollah] received dentures as part of his treatment at the National Dental Centre Singapore”, making it sound like treatment was nearly complete. Yet, the statement also said, “In December 2024, the worker expressed his preference to return to his home country despite not having completed his treatment” – which was exactly our point. Ezzin Mollah did not get through the full treatment plan and that was because of employer obstructionism.
We reject MOM’s characterisation of our article as “misleading”.
The penultimate paragraph of MOMs statement says:
TWC2 further alleged that the practice of hospitals seeking Letters of Guarantee from employers gives them the opportunity to refuse or delay the medical treatment of migrant workers. This statement is untrue.
How is this untrue? It was exactly what happened in Ezzin Mollah’s case. Here are the key details from our contemporaneous case notes:
18 Sep 2024
Email to MOM: “[Ezzin Mollah] was scheduled for this treatment a few months ago, but since his company did not provide LOG, he had to reschedule a couple of times. So he is now requesting MOM’s assistance to get the LOG. Appreciate it if MOM is able to provide him with the assistance he required.”
1 Oct 2024
TWC2’s case officer made a note that MOM had replied to our email, saying “Upon our engagement, [Ezzin Mollah]’s employer will provide the LOG prior to his medical appointment on 17 October 2024.”
7 Nov 2024
Still not receiving treatment. Tooth procedure that was scheduled for 17 October 2024 did not happen as National Dental Centre (NDC) did not accept the LOG prepared by the company. The company only agreed to cover the 17 Oct cost but pending bills not covered so NDC advised worker to get company to issue a LOG that will cover all past bills as well. The procedure is on hold until past bills are cleared. Worker said previous bills amount to about $2000 and he has given all to boss. However bills remain unpaid.
13 Nov 2024
Called NDC to ask about the issue of the LOG not accepted. It was not the exact LOG that he and the hospital need. The LOG that was given by his employer is only for his doctor visit for 17 October 2024. It might be an accidental error by the company saying that the LOG will only cover the billings for the 17 October visit. What the hospital requested from the company is that to mention specifically that the company will cover the whole cost of the dental operation and procedure and to also mention that the company will cover the full cost of $17,570.80.
In telling Ezzin Mollah’s story, we wrote in our December 2024 article that, “In particular, the present practice of hospitals seeking Letters of Guarantee from employers is the most common hurdle. Hospitals won’t go ahead with treatment unless an employer presents such a Letter, and employers often use this opportunity to delay or simply refuse. The result is that the worker is denied treatment, or it is delayed, prolonging his suffering.”
The contemporaneous case notes from our files show exactly that. MOM would know that too, since we emailed them about the problem.
Yet, in MOM’s rebuttal of our article, their final paragraph paints a picture of social perfection. The law is this, therefore all is well. MOM wrote:
Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations, employers of Work Permit Holders are responsible for providing and bearing the cost of workers’ medical treatment, regardless of whether the conditions are work-related. For urgent emergency medical treatment, hospitals typically proceed with the treatment due to its time-sensitive nature, and will inform employers after carrying out the treatment.
Urgent treatment was indeed carried out, but the hospital couldn’t get payment for it. The employer appeared to try to avoid taking responsibility for it (by excluding earlier costs from the letter of guarantee), thereby jeopardising further treatment for the worker.
Nor should we lose sight of how the case ended. Ezzin Mollah never got the planned dental surgery. He gave up and went home. Maybe he could get treatment there and more cheaply. But that does not change the fact that the system that MOM is so proud of did not work.
Instead of shooting us, the messenger, maybe more effort should be put into making the system better.
15118