A screenshot from the Facebook video discussed in the article

TWC2 recently came across a short video on Facebook Reels (https://www.facebook.com/reel/3354627134698235) where a man, possibly named Tamilmaran, advertises his job placement services. Specifically, he speaks of job opportunities in Singapore under what he calls an “E Pass”. This is almost surely in reference to an Employment Pass – a category of work pass issued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).

Speaking in Tamil, this recruiter says he is looking for people for jobs in hotels and restaurants. The video also has a hashtag “#supermarketjobs” though he does not say it in so many words within the video itself. He mentions a “very small service charge” of 3.5 lakh rupees (roughly $5,200) and adds a sweetener that there is no “advance payment”. We understand the “service charge” as an agent’s fee.

A salary of 75,000 to 80,000 rupees (around $1,100 to $1,200) is mentioned. This salary range implies a monthly salary.

He stresses that he is looking for people with good cooking skills, and says if one is born between 1985 and 1996, “it is a very great blessing”. He adds that payment to him is only expected after the candidate has received a “visa” to come to Singapore to work.

What appears to be his number (+97 8773 6584) is embedded in the video. It’s probably a WhatsApp number.

Key facts about the Employment Pass can be found on this page at MOM’s website. It’s a category that is meant for professionals and management executives, who can command a minimum salary of $5,000 (more if working in the financial services sector) and the minimum salary also increases with age “up to $10,500 for those in the mid-40s”.

It is entirely possible for top tier master chefs to be seen as a professionals and to command such salaries, but given that this recruiter’s mentioned salary range ($1,100 to $1,200 per month) falls well below MOM’s minimum, context tells us that he is looking for drudgery cooks for jobs in small diners or mass central kitchens. Perhaps the work involves preparing the cheap meals supplied to Indian construction workers living in dormitories.

It is also worth noting that his “service fee” of $5,200 is nearly five times the monthly salary.

Brazen

The bottom line is that such use of the Employment Pass to work in Singapore in low-level jobs is a violation of the intent and rules of the pass category. Related to that is the issue of a large agent fee. Not only is it unethical, it puts the worker at serious risk of financial ruin if he is caught by the authorities within a month or two of working in Singapore. The Employment Pass would be invalidated before the worker has had a chance to earn enough to recover the sunk cost.

From the cases we have handled at TWC2, the worker is likely going to be made to work inhuman hours, e.g. 15 or 16 hours a day, seven days a week. Overtime wages are unlikely to be paid, especially since the guy in the video pointedly does not mention it. (Most agents mention overtime wages in their sales pitch, because they are a useful selling point to make the salary even more attractive).

Given how this scheme, by its very design, breaks the law, it is remarkably brazen that Tamilmaran (or whatever his name is) has put it on Facebook. But if he is not based in Singapore, he may not think he is at any risk.

Moreover, since the agent is anyway going to ignore the rules surrounding the Employment Pass salary and overtime, he is likely to ignore other rules as well. The recruited worker may be deployed to workplaces that are unrelated to his officially-documented employer. Or he might be put to work without going through the necessary food safety courses. Should other infringements such as these be found, the worker may find himself subject to criminal investigation too.

Just another of many rule-cheaters

It is stunning how many different kinds of rule-cheating we have written about in recent months. This Employment Pass scheme is just one more to a growing list.

  • Recently, we highlighted in three articles (here, here and here) the misuse of Training Employment Passes.
  • We have mentioned again and again the issue of unlicensed agents operating within Singapore in clear violation of the Employment Agencies Act, such as in this article.

All these are in addition to the more “run of the mill” rule-breaking such as not paying salaries, or not providing payslips.

The common denominator across this Employment Pass scheme and the others listed above is weak enforcement. The Singapore government is not often afflicted with resource constraints, so weak enforcement is generally traceable to lack of political will. With respect to recruitment, the government is also ideologically wedded to the concept of laissez-faire. Between these two immovable conditions is an arena where lawlessness has free rein. Private actors fill the space because the government will not get involved and, naturally, when enforcement is relegated to lip service, private actors see no need to abide by rules.

TWC2 has long argued that the State cannot avoid responsibility. It needs to be more engaged in the recruitment process especially when there is dire information asymmetry between employers and recruiters on the one side and prospective workers on the other. The latter are disadvantaged by language, physical distance and lack of contacts within the employment landscape. They are also disadvantaged by the imbalance of supply and demand: there are literally millions of men and women in the region keen to work here, but Singapore can only offer a relatively limited number of jobs. Their bargaining power is seriously undercut, enabling recruiters and employers to dictate terms e.g. fees and employment conditions.

Market failure

These conditions make for market failure. Throw in weak enforcement, and market failure is further corrupted, with actors who break the rules gaining an advantage and reaping the gains. But these gains come at the expense of workers and their families, who are misled:

  • paying huge sums in agent fees (sometimes for fake jobs);
  • sent to jobs different from promised;
  • paid less than promised;
  • unknowingly placed in situations where they may run afoul of the law.

They also come at the expense of Singaporeans who might need a job as a cook, cleaner, warehouse assistant, supermarket stacker or cashier. Instead, recruiters operating outside the law fill these jobs with foreigners hired through an abuse of the Employment Pass. At the same time, employers who are required to apply the Progressive Wage Model to Singaporean employees are tempted to hire foreigners either because wages for foreign workers are lower or recruiters can offer kickbacks as inducement. With foreign workers, employers may also count on getting away with not paying for overtime work. All this may be against the law, but who cares anyway? Apparently, not even the government, seeing how little enforcement action there is.

Multiple corrective actions are need. Chief among these are:

1. Counter information asymmetry by making information about available jobs (and their terms and conditions) transparently available. We strongly argue for a centralised recruitment portal where all Work Permit jobs must be listed (not optional).

2. Require all recruitment to be transacted through the portal and no other channel. All communication between prospective worker and employer (or his agent) should be via the portal and logged for forensic purposes in future if needed; all fees should be paid via the portal so that amounts can be monitored to be within Singapore law.

3. Crack down on major and minor breaches so as to stamp out the growing sense of impunity among agents (licensed and unlicensed) and the employers they work with.

A complaints window is not enforcement

Singapore’s dispute resolution system for migrant workers has been improving. Workers who have been victimised by employers breaking the law can often get redress (at least partially) provided they have evidence.

However, a system that depends on individuals filing complaints is a far cry from the concept of enforcement. This is especially when, even when there are grounds to see the employer violation as an offence in law, the case is treated purely as a civil dispute between parties and the employer is not taken to task for the violation in the first place.

A complaints window only helps those workers courageous enough to file a case. It does not help the many more who are intimidated by their employers, in debt (and thus afraid of losing their jobs), or those who have little evidence to offer. Agents and employers control the evidence. If they do not issue receipts, payslips, time cards or copies of contract, the worker will find it hard to file a case.

TWC2 has argued that every time a law violation is uncovered through an individual worker’s complaint, the employer or agent has to be investigated and audited to ensure that other employees are not similarly affected. Regrettably, from the thousands of cases we assist with, our observation is that even such a basic and simple response to lawlessness is rarely undertaken.