Pulling up his documents from his phone
A work pass grants a foreign worker the right to stay in Singapore while employed. The moment that pass is invalidated, the clock starts ticking for the worker. He has to leave the country within a specified time, either one week or one month as the individual case may be. The exception would be if the worker can find an alternative employer, but this is a lot more complicated than it sounds and the process is not entirely within the worker’s control.
Levy unpaid
Obayid is one such worker in that unenviable situation. In early August, he and other workers in the company – Obayid estimates there were twelve of them – received a message from the employer to check their work pass status. On doing so through a Ministry of Manpower app, he saw the dreaded word “Invalid”. So did his coworkers. In fact, the passes of all the workers in the company were invalidated.
From TWC2’s experience, the most likely reason for mass suspension of work passes is that the employer failed to pay the monthly foreign worker levy, which can be as much as $900 per foreign employee. A business defaulting on the levies of twelve workers brings cash flow issues to mind. However, according to Obayid, while he was informed that non-payment of levy was the precipitating factor, the company’s business was doing decently.
Whether or not this was a planned retrenchment (defaulting on the levy would have been simple enough), business slowdown, or an administrative oversight; it is clear that these workers are at the mercy of their employer to avoid being sent home. But, as described below, even the bureaucratic processes in employing foreign workers can be weaponised to suit the employer’s hiring (and firing) whims. Throughout the interview, Obayid repeatedly recounts how his former boss used the threat of sending him back to Bangladesh. He had gotten used to hearing – whether it was in response to asking for owed pay or overtime pay – “just go home lah.”
Obayid has not been happy with this employer for some time. When he first started working in this company, his salary was in accordance with the official documents. Two months later, the employer reduced his monthly salary by $300 and made him sign a letter agreeing to that. Obayid felt coerced.
Going home is not an option for Obayid. Back in Bangladesh, he has a wife and two children dependent on him as the sole breadwinner. His older child has just started university, and his mother is in hospital.
Until his surprise termination (from non-payment of the levy), Obayid was kept on that reduced pay. Additionally, overtime was short-paid. He describes working more hours than he was paid for. The limitation: a hard-coded ceiling on the number of hours he could clock in on the company’s timesheet app.
Transfer letter
As soon as he saw “Invalid” on the app, Obayid immediately began searching for new employment to stay in Singapore, leveraging his contacts among his friends. Luckily, with four previous stints in Singapore, he has acquired considerable experience and should be a desirable hire.
To switch to another employer in Singapore, a worker needs permission from his existing employer. In Obayid’s case, he is in a bit of a predicament as the foreign worker levy has not been paid, and the employer is no longer a valid employer. This means that whatever permission is given, it’s, well, not valid. It strikes us as surprisingly easy for an employer to use the non-payment of the levy to terminate a worker and send him home, while maintaining deniability about one’s true intentions: Just default on the levy which invalidates the Work Permit, but at the same time say it’s beyond one’s power to give permission for a transfer.
This somewhat inane situation might be best described as privatised red tape. Workers lose out when decisions regarding their employment and termination are trivial to the employer yet are consequential to the worker. This is compounded by the fact that the system favours the convenience of the employer over fair and stable livelihoods for workers.
Perhaps it would not be a stretch to say that even businesses lose out too. In a situation where there are new employers willing to take the laid-off workers, the hiring process is tied down by the former employer. Efficiency is compromised too, when the red tape is so thick.
TWC2 has argued for years that there should be simplicity in the system. For example, every worker who has lost his job – whether prematurely, or upon expiry of his permit – should get at least 30 days to look for new employment without having to seek the previous employer’s permission.
Happy ending
When things were at their bleakest, it was easy to think the worst of the employer, and to project onto him ulterior motives. However, that might not be fair.
It soon turned out that the employer paid up his levy arrears. Obayid’s Work Permit was then re-validated, and in that brief window of time, the employer gave him a transfer letter. Thus armed with permission, Obayid quickly confirmed the new job offer he had.
Two weeks after our interview, we hear from Obayid that he’s in his new job.
A happy ending, right? Not quite. The new job is at a lower salary than the previous one. Obayid, being desperate to find work, had to seize whatever he could find within the short window of opportunity he had.
At the same time, he has launched a salary claim for the unrecorded overtime and other shortfalls. Life is never stress-free.
16669