File photo of religious items
Just days after starting on a new job in Singapore, Anna found herself in turmoil. It all began with a sexual advance from her employer, which then led to illegal deployment, non-payment of salary, and ultimately, wrongful dismissal. However, this article is about how Anna was denied the opportunity to continue working in Singapore, despite the MOM’s policy to grant a change of employer to all foreign workers with valid salary claims, regardless of the current employer’s consent. [see footnotes 1 and 2]
Anna, a young Burmese worker holding a work permit, had been working at a fengshui shop for just over a week when her employer, whom she was instructed to address as “Master,” demanded that she give him “love” in exchange for pocket money. Summoning her courage, Anna firmly replied, “No. I am here to work.”
The next day, when Anna arrived for work, her employer unexpectedly ordered her to go to his girlfriend’s apartment in Simei to do housekeeping work. There, and over the following two days, she spent long hours cleaning, hand-washing laundry, and ironing, all under the girlfriend’s direction.
Anna knew that her boss was violating the law by assigning her work unrelated to her employment contract. She also discovered that all her co-workers had already received their pay for the previous month, except for her. A few days later, while she was still waiting for her salary, she was abruptly dismissed with immediate effect. The reason given was that she had used her mobile phone during working hours. She acknowledged using her phone, but only after completing her tasks, and believed this was not a fair reason for dismissal. Nevertheless, the employer refused to reconsider, and they cancelled Anna’s work permit. The following day, the employer paid her $480 as a salary for ten days.
Misrepresentation and illegal deployment?
Separate from the issues discussed in this story, Anna’s case also raises questions about misrepresentation at the point of recruitment, and misdeployment during employment.
Anna’s employment documentation showed that she was to work in the “service” sector as a “food processing worker”. However, she had been promised by her recruiter that she would be working in a shoe shop.
As indicated above, her main employment was with an employer who ran a fengshui shop, and as punishment was made to do domestic worker’s tasks on a few days. At the fengshui shop, her tasks included preparing prayer materials, checking email, organising spreadsheets and generating invoices. Anna reported that she was also asked on occasion to go to a shoe shop to assist with customers and spreadsheets, as well as to another shop in Geylang to clean and do beading work.
It seems that three different businesses and one apartment owner had use of her labour.
Filed a claim
When Anna contacted TWC2, we assessed that she had been underpaid. Although the employer paid her basic salary for the ten days she worked, the rate they used ($48/day) to calculate the salary was lower than what she was promised in the In-Principle Approval document issued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). They also failed to pay for the first two days of training, two Sundays of work, and 48 hours of overtime. We calculated her underpayment to be $1,200.
A more complex issue lay in the circumstances of her termination. The facts suggested that Anna could argue that the true reason for her dismissal was her refusal to comply with her employer’s sexual advances. The sequence of events — being sent to clean his girlfriend’s flat the day after she rejected his request for a sexual relationship, followed by her dismissal shortly thereafter, with a relatively minor incident involving phone use cited as the reason — all pointed to an assessment that this was a likely case of wrongful dismissal on unfair grounds.
With the hope of recovering her full salary and obtaining permission from the MOM to change employers, as well as vindicating herself that dismissal was wrongful, Anna proceeded to file a salary and wrongful dismissal claim with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), the unit that handles employment disputes. Shortly after, Anna attended a TADM mediation session; the employer, TADM mediator, and a Burmese interpreter also attended. The session was held online. [Footnote 3]
The mediation lasted only a little over an hour. Anna emerged from the meeting room and immediately reported to TWC2, recounting that the salary claim had been settled for the full amount of $1,279, and the wrongful dismissal claim for half the claim amount of $3,720.67. This was great news. However, to her great disappointment, TADM declined her request for permission to look for a new job locally. Such permission usually takes the form of a Change of Employer (COE) certificate. Without this, she would have to leave Singapore before she could work here again.
Why was Anna not granted a COE?
We were puzzled. If the employer agreed to pay the full amount in her salary claim, shouldn’t it indicate that Anna’s claim was valid? Why wasn’t she granted a COE? Ministers have assured Parliament, on more than one occasion that foreign workers with valid employment claims would be given COEs, and it’s been longstanding policy for years.
When we requested clarification, TADM explained that the mediator did not find Anna’s salary claim valid (thus, no COE) because (TADM said) the employer provided proof that salary was paid but Anna was unable to prove that she worked overtime and an additional four days. The employer adamantly disagreed that there was any short payment, but ultimately he offered to pay the full amount “as a gesture of goodwill”, and Anna had accepted it.
After reviewing these reasons with Anna, we responded to TADM: Putting aside her claim for salary for an additional four days, the payment voucher indicated strong proof of short payment: Anna was paid $466 ($480 minus $14 due to not finishing work on the last day after being dismissed) for ten days of work at a daily rate of $48, an amount below the $76.92 fixed rate [footnote 4] stipulated in her IPA. This discrepancy alone unequivocally supported the validity of her salary claim. Thus, the TADM mediator’s assessment that her claim was not valid didn’t hold water.
To this, the TADM responded with a new argument: that the employer’s offer of settlement included the condition that Anna return home instead of seeking a transfer job. As Anna accepted this, the TADM did not issue a COE to her.
Inconsistent response
As is immediately obvious, TADM’s response was inconsistent, claiming at first that Anna did not qualify for a COE because she couldn’t prove her salary claim was valid, yet also said they withheld the COE (implication: she qualified for a COE, just that it was withheld) because she accepted the employer’s settlement offer, which required her to return home. Which was the actual reason?
In any case, we believe neither reason justifies denying her a COE. As explained above, the first reason appears to stem from the TADM mediator’s flawed assessment of the validity of Anna’s salary claim. This is troubling, and we can only hope this was an isolated incident. More concerning is the second reason: it shows the employer used TADM’s discretion to grant a COE as a bargaining chip to punish Anna, and the mediator went along with it. This is not right; the policy laid down by ministers – workers will be given COE whenever they have valid claims – was not conditional on employers’ pleasure.
Frankly, we could not identify any plausible motive for the employer to want Anna removed from Singapore other than to punish her and it should be concerning that TADM allowed it.
Notably, the supposed condition requiring Anna to leave Singapore was not even recorded in the settlement agreement overseen by the mediator. This raises a critical question: Should an informal condition to leave without a COE be the basis of TADM’s discretion? TADM seems to think so, as they still refused to grant Anna a COE when she made a renewed request after mediation.
Some might argue Anna could have rejected the settlement as unfair. But how realistic was that when the employer agreed to pay her full claim only if she left the country, and the mediator did nothing to question this tactic?
Inconsistency poses reputational risk
In our view, TADM should grant a COE independently of the form or content of any settlement agreement. This independence is important to prevent employers from using it as leverage. After all, it can be argued that MOM’s COE policy is there to counteract the possibility that employers might abuse their privilege of granting permission to Work Permit holders to transfer to new jobs. To now link COEs to employers’ desires would therefore be perverse.
For Work Permit holders, being sent home is their greatest fear, as it means losing months of income and having to pay exorbitant recruitment fees to get a new job in Singapore. Workers from Myanmar, a country with a ravaged economy and with ongoing conflict, also face the likelihood of a military draft, and they are particularly distressed at being sent back. It is bad enough when a job fails and employers retaliate. The COE is the only safeguard that protects workers from severe consequences for speaking up. Without it, more and more workers will remain silent and tolerate salary violations. As Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said in Parliament (cited in footnote 2) “This is an important safeguard for migrant workers who have been unfairly treated.”
A better long-term solution to TADM’s inconsistent and discretionary COE practices would be to allow all foreign workers to change employers freely, without needing their current employer’s consent. When workers’ job mobility is no longer tied to their employer, they can raise salary disputes without fear of retaliation or sudden repatriation, fostering a fairer and more just system for all. Until then, the COE policy, as introduced by MOM, is a necessary compromise — and we hope MOM will stand by its promise to uphold it.
1. In November 2017, then-Minister for Manpower Lim Swee Say said in a speech, “All foreign workers with valid salary claims are also allowed to change employers.” See Straits Times, 26 Nov 2017, “Mandatory settling-in programme for foreign workers to start in second half of 2018”
2. On 15 February 2025, Senior Minister of State for Manpower Koh Poh Koon said the following in Parliament. Although part of a longer reply in a parliamentary debate about kickbacks that employers demand from migrant workers, he made a more general statement about extending COE to migrant workers with valid employment claims, not just kickbacks. In fact, the most common type of employment claim relates to salary.
Migrant workers who are pressurised into giving kickbacks should step forward and report the matter to MOM. Our FAST Team officers were deployed to dormitories or to reach out to the NGOs, many of whom are very active in the dormitories today, such as the Migrant Workers Centre.
We share the Member’s view that migrant workers who are treated unfairly should be allowed to change employers. Migrant workers with valid employment claims, including those who have been forced to pay kickbacks, are permitted to transfer to another employer and continue working here in Singapore. This is an important safeguard for migrant workers who have been unfairly treated.
3. Anna’s mediation was conducted online to spare her from confronting the employer in person, given her allegation of sexual harassment.
4. Anna’s fixed monthly salary was $2,000, including basic salary and allowance, which translates to a fixed daily salary of $76.92.
17543