Siddharth and Madhav came to Singapore in the second quarter of 2023 to work as lifeguards. The company employing them did not assign them to any swimming pool permanently; instead they were rotated around many different pools. Quite often they were assigned to public pools or pools at Civil Service Clubs. The two men, both from Kerala, India, say that their employer (the company) had contracts with government-linked bodies that manage these pools.

Lots of families, taking their kids for a swim, depend on lifeguards to help ensure the safety of our children when they are in the water.

It is March 2025: Siddharth and Madhav approach TWC2 to consult about their salary short-payments; they want to know what avenues of recourse exist. To better understand the contours of the claim, we enquire about their overtime hours. We are taken aback to learn that their working hours were 7am to 9 pm every day. That’s 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

“How do you guys get enough sleep?” we ask them. “How do you even stay alert while on duty?”

They somehow managed, they say, but we are reminded of four other lifeguards who were employed by the same company and who came to TWC2 about two months earlier. These four (from Tamilnadu, India) couldn’t take it anymore and wanted to quit only about eight months into their employment. They too had a salary grievances, but it was equally the inhuman hours they were required to put in that made them decide to quit.

End of 2-year S-pass period

In the case of Siddarth and Madhav, they toughed it out; “got used to it,” as they put it. Even so, with their two-year S-Passes now approaching expiry and the employer saying they were not prepared to renew them, these two guys do not seem too unhappy about it. The job was taking a toll on them anyway. What they are unhappy about is that in all two years, they have not been paid the correct salary. And so, here they are at TWC2 asking about what they can do about this.

Their basic salary was $3,100 a month. This was written into the In-Principle Approval (IPA) they received before coming to Singapore. The IPA is a document generated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) indicating its approval of a work pass for a foreigner. Among many details, it also states the salary that had been agreed between employer and prospective employee.

Yet, Siddharth and Madhav were only paid $1,600 each month. Furthermore, their overtime and rest day hours were also compensated at an irregular rate of pay.

Things took a twist in late February 2025. This was just after the four other lifeguards had filed a salary claim. The company settled the claim, but obviously was also aware that Siddharth and Madhav – who hadn’t yet filed claims then – were similarly short-paid, and might file claims later on. So, in February, to create a figleaf of proper payment, the company deposited the full sum of $3,100 into each of these two lifeguards’ bank accounts as basic salary. However, the manager Mugilan demanded that $1,500 be returned to him in cash.

Siddarth and Madhav at first played for time, but later when pressure from the manager Mugilan became unbearable, they agreed to transfer $1,500 via their bank accounts. They were told to send the money – what is known as a kickback – to the personal bank account of another manager named Gopal.

Altogether, Siddarth’s and Madhav’s cases show three different kinds of violations: deliberate short-payment of salary, excessive working hours and kickbacks. All three are criminal offences. They are also violations of the ILO Convention 29 on Forced Labour, which Singapore has ratified.  As of the time of writing, the case is ongoing. The men’s evidence is good, and we are hopeful of a positive outcome for them.

Responsibility of public agencies

This, however, is not merely a matter of a private dispute between employer and employee. It has public interest significance, because the company that hired these lifeguards is a contractor for Sport Singapore and Active SG, the government-linked bodies that manage our public swimming pools. Besides the question of long working hours, alertness and reckless disregard for the safety of children and adults in pools (on the part of the management by rostering them this way), there is also the ethical question of whether government-linked bodies should turn a blind eye to exploitative employment arrangements and underpayment of salaries.

As mentioned above, besides being criminal offences under law, these violations bring Singapore’s compliance with Convention 29 on Forced Labour into question. It is unacceptable for government-linked bodies to adopt a hands-off attitude should any of its contractors engage in such behaviour. Sport Singapore and Active SG should review the standards they set for their supply chain and require all their contractors to abide by the letter and spirit of the Employment Act and other relevant laws, and ensure reasonable, non-exploitative terms of employment for all employees, local or foreign.

16019, 16018