In July 2025, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) reiterated their stand on kickbacks in a press release following the conviction of an employer. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the press release said,

6.  Collecting employment kickbacks from migrant workers is a serious offence, and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will not hesitate to take enforcement action against such unlawful acts. Individuals who are found to have collected kickbacks may be fined up to $30,000, or imprisoned up to 2 years, or both.

7.  Migrant workers who suspect that they are being asked to give kickbacks can seek help by calling MOM….

It is simplistic to merely encourage workers to report their cases to MOM. Time and time again, TWC2 has observed how the fear of losing the job (and the enormous cost and difficulty of getting a new job) makes this wishful thinking in the vast majority of cases. Although the occasional employer is prosecuted, it is the rare instance. One can trawl through MOM’s press releases, for example, and count how many convictions there are per year. It’s like digging for gold.

Khahi (name changed) tells us about his experience which shows exactly how a worker sees the matter, but his story begins with a twist.

Khahi first came to Singapore in 2011 to work in the construction sector. With over a decade of experience under his belt, he has honed many skills as a steel welder. In 2025 however, he was back in Bangladesh looking for a new Singapore job. He first reached out via WhatsApp to an Indian job agent recommended by a friend. This agent then helped to arrange online interviews between him and prospective employers. Before long, one phone interview with an employer proved successful and he was offered a job.

All smooth sailing so far. We’ve now come to the stage where the deal should be closed: his agent collects the fee ($1,500 in this case, relatively low perhaps on account of his years of experience), gets him an In-principle Approval (IPA) from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Khahi gets on a plane to start work here. Not so fast, with this story.

The fun begins

Here comes the twist: after the employer agreed to take him on, he tells Khahi, “no need (to) talk (to the) agent (anymore).” The boss would cut the agent off, and apply directly to MOM for an IPA.  Was this an act of kindness? Was this company shaking off the middlemen to help him avoid the latter’s fee?

Unfortunately not. “Boss ask . . .  agent how much take money,” Khahi recalls the question put to him by the boss, and his reply to that question, “I say one thousand plus.”

Following that, Khahi recounts the boss’ response: “Then he say, ‘Okay you don’t contact agent, you give me six hundred only.’”

In other words, Khahi’s prospective employer would help him to avoid the $1,500 fee he was going to pay to the Indian agent, but charge $600 directly. The old saying, There’s no honour among thieves, comes to mind. Still, it is a great offer for Khahi — now, he would only need to pay less than half of the ‘agent fee’ stipulated earlier, significantly reducing his financial burden.

Our eyebrows are raised on hearing this. Of course, there was no contract outlining this $600 request. Kickbacks, the practice of collecting money from foreign employees as a condition of employment or for employment-related costs, is illegal.

Khahi’s boss obviously knew he was breaking the law. When, after sending the money to the boss’ stipulated bank account (in Singapore), Khaki WhatsApps him proof of the transfer, the employer’s reply to his screenshot comes across as panicked: “You delete all of these discussion,” and later, “(…) No record of this.”

But that’s not why he came to TWC2

The $600 that Khahi paid to his boss was the least of his worries. He came to us with concerns over his salary, and the fear of being suddenly terminated by his boss for trying to ask for his due wages. While he was fairly compensated in the first few months of his job, he tells us he has since been short-paid for his overtime work, and is being pressured to sign a new contract with a blank space where his official salary ought to be.

However, as we start taking the details of his story, as we do with all our clients, his face tenses up. He pauses uneasily to clarify that he is “talking only”; he’s not ready to take further action because he still needs to keep a job. We tell him that it’s up to him when he wishes to launch a case, if ever.

Khahi’s fears about losing the job is very real. In the five months since joining the company, he has seen three co-workers terminated without warning. Three is a significant number when the company has fewer than ten foreign workers. He expresses that these terminations seem to happen at his boss’ whim; he recounts that one worker had fallen sick from a fever, and was simply gone the next day.

We’re not sure if the information he is getting from us about his rights and available remedy processes is enough to put his mind at ease. When we convey such information, we’re always careful not to raise hopes too high. Rights often exist only on paper, and remedy processes frequently do not produce the desired results. Khahi needs time to think; he isn’t going to make a life-changing decision on the spot. It is hard to tell, as he ambles off into the night, whether he feels any better after consulting with us.

Robust victim protection needed

Khahi is a victim of at least two criminal violations by the employer: a demand for kickbacks and failure to pay correct salary on time. The employer is also behaving in an unethical way (pressing him to sign a new contract with no salary stated) and doing so by exploiting Khahi’s vulnerability as a migrant worker. Any such new contract signed would signify forced labour, a violation of the United Nations’ Palermo Convention against trafficking in persons.

Despite being the victim, it is Khahi who is almost paralysed with fear. Justice should be on his side, but the cost of trying to obtain it can be excruciatingly high.

Workers who file complaints against their employers face long periods of unemployment following the filing. Employers are given free reign to cancel their Work Permits. At the end of the battle for justice and after months of unemployment, there is no assurance that they can find new jobs. They may still face repatriation and will almost certainly have to pay agents all over again to find their next job. As a result, they may prefer to suffer in silence (and accede to unfair contracts) than to take the plunge into the unknown and lodge a complaint.

A key prerequisite for any system that aims to promise justice is victim protection. In a case like Khahi’s, the protection he needs would be something along these lines (provided that it is a valid claim):

1. housing and basic sustenance while he is unemployed;

2. an assurance that he has a very high chance of moving into a new job within a month (maximum two) of filing a valid claim;

3. compensation for lost salary until he gets into a new job.

Currently, the only protection that MOM offers is (1) housing and meals. As for (2), MOM only offers a “Change of Employer” letter (COE) allowing the worker to look for new jobs, and the letter is only valid for two weeks – which is laughably short. In any case such a letter is no assurance at all that a new job can be found.

Protection (1) is currently inadequate. It needs to be improved with a monetary allowance for transport and communication. It is absurd that government agencies like MOM, TADM and the Employment Claims Tribunal themselves expect workers to have the data subscription enabling them to replyWhatsApp messages and emails, and from time to time expect them to make their way downtown for face-to-face meetings, with no provision for monetary support.

With protection (2), improvements needed are:

(a) expedited processing for any IPA application involving a worker who is holding a COE letter;

(b) if there are many workers holding COE letters looking for work, slow down processing of IPA applications for workers from outside Singapore;

(c) offer a discount on the foreign worker levy for perhaps the first twelve months for any employer taking on a COE worker.

The bottom line is that without victim protection, justice is little more than a mirage.

16911