In just two weeks of April alone, we came across three unusual cases. They’re not our run-of-the mill salary or injury cases, serious though these may be. These three unusual cases violate the rules or the ethics of employment, but they also show up the inadequacies of the system and regulatory processes, in that it is very hard to see how the Ministry of Manpower can deliver just resolution for these workers under their current operating protocols.
This is the first of three cases:
A well-dressed Chinese woman came with a friend to seek help from TWC2 in the last week of April 2025. She had an unusual problem. She had been employed by Leader Manufacturing Pte Ltd, which, from a websearch, seems to be a manufacturer of clothing and furniture. The young woman (whom we will refer to as Luwen) was a Sales Representative.
The twist was that she was not involved in any work related to manufacturing nor selling of the company’s manufactured products even though her Work Permit said she would be working in the manufacturing sector. Instead, she had been hired for a role that sounded very much like that of a property agent. That was the job vacancy the company had on offer at the point of hiring, and that was what Luwen had accepted as her job. She paid 23,000 RMB (about $4,300 SGD at then-exchange rate) to an agent in China for this job.
It turned out that Leader Manufacturing was one of a large cluster of possibly-related companies with similar “Leader” names. At least one of these was involved in bringing Chinese students into Singapore, and helping them find and rent rooms. That sounded like a service sector job, but Luwen explained that being new to Singapore and unfamiliar with the bureaucratic jargon, she didn’t understand the difference or significance of “sectors”. Specifically, there is a rule that migrant workers should not be working outside the stipulated industry sector (manufacturing in her case) nor for companies other than the companies responsible for their work passes. The employer should not have advertised a room-search job. Luwen should not have been asked to do work for a related company.
However, a few months into her job, Luwen had a suspicion that something might not be right. She asked around whether it was proper to be working as a kind of leasing agent or property agent when her Work Permit clearly stated “manufacturing” and she was mostly doing work for a related company. Apparently, no one in her social circle could give her a clear answer. However, soon after, events overtook her.
In April 2025, she was laid off along with at least one other employee. She had only been on the job for about eight months. The management said that the company needed to downsize. The basic salary had been fully paid up, and the company gave them the due notice period. Unfortunately, the promised commissions – for each successful property match – had not been paid and so she came to TWC2 to ask what she could do. And that’s when we explained to her the mess she was in. It wasn’t just a question of non-payment of commissions, there were several other violations. Those relating to her work pass and job sector she already had faint suspicions about, but she might also have needed a proper licence if her job was that of a property agent.
Luwen came to us the following day for a second consultation. We learned that she was led to expect the commissions to be paid by a related company. However, she only had a contract with Leader Manufacturing, which only mentioned bonuses; she had no formal agreement with the related company regarding commissions. Without solid documentation, it would be challenging to pursue such a case.
Of course, contracts can be verbal. One might argue that there was a verbal agreement for her to do the work she did but be paid the commissions by the related company. However the Employment Claims Act requires claims to be brought against one’s employer, so if she wanted to pursue this route, she would have to bring a civil claim against the related company. But then, she would risk being accused of working for a company that was not her official employer.
Yet, how could she have known about the risks ahead at the time when she applied and accepted the job? From her perspective: a company advertised for leasing agents and she applied for the job. How was she to know that the company should not have been advertising such a job? How was she to know that taking up such work, with complicated compensation arrangements that she didn’t know about till later, would put her rightful compensation in jeopardy?
But now that the kind of mess she is in has come to light, there is no clear path forward.
Yet, it shouldn’t be a case of “it’s too bad” either because this example comes uncomfortably close to two indicators of human trafficking. There is deception at the point of hiring, inducing her to cross a border under false pretences – that she can work as a leasing agent for the company that’s employing here. Consquently, she is now at risk of legal jeopardy for breaking the law. Strictly speaking, the trafficking indicator is phrased as “threat of denunciation to the authorities”, and it should be pointed out that at this point in time, the employer is not threatening to denounce her to either the Ministry of Manpower or the Ministry of National Development (re property agents).
Even so, Luwen is a victim of something, least of all her due commissions for work done, and if Singapore has no system for righting this, then something needs fixing.
16167, 16168