Type of issue: job placement, recruitment and costs
IOM does a stock-take of a decade of efforts to eradicate recruitment fees; says government action is essential for progress. We agree.
Following Straits Times' Op-ed of 19 May 2026, the newspaper published several letters. We comment on a few of them.
A worker applied for a restaurant kitchen job and was happy to get one. Not only was he not paid properly, his documentation said this was not his job.
A longish commentary on migrant workers appeared in the Straits Times on 19 May 2026. TWC2 responded with a letter to the editor.
Three workers tell us that during the recruitment phase, they had been offered (and they accepted) a salary of $1,000 a month. But the IPA only showed $520. Any way to resolve this?
With conversations on WhatsApp and bank transfer confirmations, a cook could prove that he was charged more than what the agent declared to MOM
Eradicating the cancer of recruitment fees requires systemic change, not just tougher laws. What should that systemic change look like?
One day before his flight to Singapore, a first-time worker was handed an In-principle Approval showing his salary to be half of what he had agreed with the agent.
An employer had not paid his workers' salaries for five months. A few men went to MOM to file claims. In case the remaining men also do so, the employer had a plan: create evidence that salaries had been paid.
Not having paid his workers' salaries for five months, a boss comes up with a ruse to create a paper and video record that salaries had actually been paid, perhaps hoping to stymie any salary complaints at MOM.
