Type of issue: job placement, recruitment and costs
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.
Over a hundred men working for three inter-connected companies filed salary complaints. All were owed thousands of dollars; but all had also paid around $10,000 to get their jobs. Do the math: 100 men x $10,000 each.
Like many shipyard workers who come to TWC2 for help, Salak tells us about his recruitment fee and the agent's efforts to cover it up. His experience is no exception.
Last October, the Business Times carried a commentary on the sustainability of our migrant labour model. We add our views.
Here is another shipyard worker, with a recruitment fee story like many others, except that the details show how involved the employer was in the fee negotiations.
We conducted an online survey of non-domestic workers from Myanmar in July and August 2025 to understand their recruitment experiences.
A large number of employers in MOM's 2024 survey reported using recruitment channels strongly associated with excessive fees and kickbacks. Time to stop denying how dirty our recruitment landscape is.
