Budget 2024 > Latest > Commentary
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this is a Budget about building our shared future together. A shared future that has been built on the work by all of us and our migrant workers over the past few decades. As we talk about being an inclusive society, we must not forget our migrant workers. Yet, our policies at times, show that there is an “us” and “them”.
In the past eight years as an MP, I have seen firsthand the backbreaking work our migrant workers do for us. I have listened firsthand to the stories of the homes and families they left behind. And I have personally met the families they have left behind and felt the pain they feel every single day.
Mazibur is a cleaner in Nee Soon East. I have known him for eight years. He came to Singapore in 2012, leaving his daughter Jannat when she was only 22 days’ old. Mazibur has not returned to Bangladesh since. Jannat will turn 12 years old this year. He has missed all her birthdays and milestones growing up. When I went to Bangladesh a few years ago to meet all our Nee Soon East cleaners’ families and have lunch with them, I met Jannat. It is sad that I got to meet Mazibur’s daughter before he did. Jannat wrote to me and what she wrote tore through my heart. She said, “Take care of my father, I love him a lot”. I promised her I would.
Sir, Mazibur’s story is not an uncommon one. Many low-wage migrant workers similarly endure long periods of separation from their families.
As a father of three young girls, I just cannot imagine how painful and how difficult it must be to be so far from their loved ones. We enjoy time with our families in the homes that these migrant workers build and keep clean for us. The least we can do is to take care of them and ensure that these workers have safe living spaces, safe food and safe avenues for reporting illegal employment practices.
In a speech delivered at the height of COVID-19, Prime Minister Lee assured our workers, “To our migrant workers, let me emphasise again: we will care for you, just like we care for Singaporeans.” I am glad we do care and, over the years, our policies on migrant workers have improved. In this Budget for Singaporeans, I hope we continue to make improvements and remember to care for our migrant workers.
Many of our youths have set a shining example in caring and speaking up for migrant workers. I have been inspired by the passion of these youths. One such youth is Kari Chua. Kari co-founded the migrant worker ground up Sama Sama in 2016. Sama Sama and their partners support migrant community leaders to address mental health issues, enhance the quality of life and ensure equitable opportunities for migrant workers. Migrant worker NGOs like Sama Sama back up their calls with concrete actions through ground-up initiatives to support our migrant workers. Many Singaporeans like Kari are calling for the Government to do more to treat our migrant workers fairly. I hope we heed their call. I will raise three recommendations.
First, we significantly improve the living standards for migrant workers.
Second, we ensure the food catered for migrant workers comply with existing food safety standards.
Third, we recognise and treat kickbacks as a form of corruption, by ensuring that there are equivalent penalties and whistleblowing protections.
I am not asking for any preferential treatment for our migrant workers. I ask only that we treat our migrant workers the same way that we would want our loved ones to be treated. I ask that we be fair and inclusive – have one set of policies that apply to all.
My first recommendation is that we ensure that the housing standards for dormitories are at least equivalent to the dormitory conditions for our full-time National Servicemen (NSFs). I am glad that MOM announced a set of improved standards for worker dormitories last year. It is a huge step in the right direction. By 2030, the dormitories must meet an interim set of housing standards. By 2040, the dormitories must meet the new standards. MOM said that these housing standards are meant to improve the dormitories’ ability to contain disease outbreaks. I am glad that MOM is acting on lessons learnt during COVID-19.
In addition to addressing the public health risks, it is also right that we make sure that our migrant workers have decent living conditions. However, many feel that the interim and new housing standards simply do not go far enough. Our current standards require at least 3.5 square metres per migrant worker. By contrast, each NSF in SAF gets seven square metres of sleeping and resting space. Why the double standards on this question of public health? Viruses will not discriminate between our migrant workers and our NSFs. We are now asking for dormitories to improve this from 3.5 square metres to 3.6 square metres per migrant worker by 2030 and 4.2 squares metres by 2040. We are asking for a 0.1-square-metre increase within seven years. To put things into perspective 0.1 square metre is less than the size of two A4 pieces of paper.
Another example is the spacing between beds in migrant worker dormitories. Currently there is no requirement for spacing between beds. It is only in 2040 that we will mandate a spacing of one metre between the beds. The pandemic taught us hard lessons about how diseases spread like wildfire when people are packed into tiny, cramped dormitory rooms. Yet, for the next 16 years, we are choosing to accept this risk. We are choosing to roll the dice and pray very hard that we will not have another pandemic in the next 16 years. It is a gamble with the lives of those living in the dormitories and it is a gamble with the lives of Singaporeans.
I understand there is a cost factor. Business costs are rising and employers have financial constraints. We must consider this, too. MOM has said that dormitory standards cannot improve more quickly because beds are short in supply and rising in price. Surely, then, the way forward is to study and implement solutions that tackle those problems, rather than wait for them to go away.
JTC used to own and manage dormitories directly. I am glad MOM will be building and owning two migrant-worker purpose-built dormitories (PBDs) through the new entity called NEST Singapore. Again, it is a step in the right direction. MOM has announced that the MOM-owned PBDs seek to promote innovations in public health resilience and liveability. They also aim to transform practices in migrant worker housing.
Indeed, if the private market cannot efficiently deliver services at minimum standards and costs necessary for public health, we should ask the hard question of whether Government agencies should reassume the role of managing and operating more dormitories more urgently. By expanding the number of dormitories owned and run by MOM, there would be significant economies of scale and perhaps even lowered costs for employers. It could be a win-win solution for both employers and employees.
Again, we must remember that this is a question of public health. This is a life and death issue when, not if, the next pandemic happens. We already know that the SAF was largely successful in keeping COVID-19 transmissions low. We already have a successful model to learn from – with a minimum standard of seven square metres per resident and all the measures that SAF took. All I am asking is that we learn from experience and urgently improve the living conditions of migrant workers.
My second recommendation is that food catered for migrant workers is safe for consumption. Our migrant workers need a proper place to rest and proper food to eat. I am glad that MOM recently ensured that there are measures in place that protect catered food from contamination until it is collected by dormitory residents for consumption. MOM clearly takes food safety very seriously. But that solves only one part of the equation. The other parts need to be urgently addressed, too.
The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires that all catered food be consumed within four hours after it is prepared. SFA also requires that all catered food be labelled with a consume-by timestamp. Many Singaporeans will be familiar with these timestamps for catered food or buffets. This four-hour rule is strictly adhered to for food catered for Singaporeans. However, a different set of standard seems to apply for some migrant workers. Workers tell me that many of them are catered with food without a consume-by timestamp. Many workers tell me that they regularly consume food way past the four-hour timeframe. It is quite obvious that this is true. We know their catered lunch is cooked in the wee hours of the morning before workers even leave for work. We know the food is delivered to the dormitories early in the morning as well. By the time workers have their meal around noon time, the food is way past the four-hour timeframe.
We know for a fact that our requirements are being breached. The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) has said that in the past five years, SFA has not received any reported cases of catered food for workers in dormitories without a consume-by timestamp. MOM has also said that they have not received specific complaints from workers about not being able to consume food within a reasonable time of preparation. This is at odds with many workers’ experiences and the realities on the ground. I know that MSE and SFA take food safety very seriously. I also know that MOM takes worker safety and welfare very seriously.
My recommendation is that MOM and MSE work together to investigate this and set specific requirements to ensure that catered food is consumed within a safe period. Migrant workers deserve food that is safe for consumption, just like all Singaporeans.
My third and final recommendation is that we recognise and treat kickbacks as a form of corruption. We should ensure that there are equivalent penalties and whistle-blowing protection. I have called for this in my previous Adjournment Motion and I am calling for it again.
We know that from 2021 to 2023, MOM investigated 210 cases of kickbacks per year and took 70 employers to task each year. That is more than one employer every week being taken to task for collecting kickbacks. Also, we do not know what the full number of unreported cases is. Our laws to protect our workers are only as good as our ability to enforce our laws. We cannot enforce our laws if workers are fearful of reporting abuses when they happen.
I have personally spoken with migrant workers whose employers coerced them into paying a sum of $3,000 in kickbacks. For some, this is more than four times their monthly salary. A crime had been committed against them. Yet, their hands were trembling as they spoke to me. They were fearful of the consequences of reporting their bosses. Many of these workers incur debt to work in Singapore in the first place. Losing their jobs may mean they have no way of repaying the loans they took to work in Singapore. One of them told me, “When I came to Singapore in 2016, I paid $14,000. In 2018, I paid $1,500 for my Work Permit. Now, they said that if I do not pay them $3,000, they will fire me”. The worker faced the stark choice of paying his boss $3,000 to renew his Work Permit or face repatriation. The same worker told me, “I am a really poor man. I have no money to give them. In this situation, I am really helpless and feeling depressed. I am an honest and hardworking man.”
We can only start solving a problem by calling a spade a spade. This is one spade digging a grave for fairness and inclusiveness. What kickbacks really are is that they are corrupt gratification that employers coerce from vulnerable workers. The penalty for collecting kickbacks is a fine of up to $30,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years per charge. By contrast, the punishment of corruption is a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years per charge. We need to review the penalties for employment kickbacks to ensure that they are commensurate with the penalties for corruption. I propose that the maximum sentence be raised to five years of imprisonment and/or a $100,000 fine, matching the penalty for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
We also need to make sure we have the same or even stronger whistle-blower protection for informers of corruption for workers to report kickbacks. The Prevention of Corruption Act has strong protection for informers. No complaints can be admitted as evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings. No witness is permitted to disclose the name of informers or any information which may lead to the discovery of the informer. I propose that we introduce whistle-blower protection for informers who report kickbacks paid to employers.
We all know the zero-tolerance approach Singapore takes to corruption. Kickbacks are corruption. There is no reason to treat kickbacks migrant workers pay any differently from other corruption in Singapore.
Sir, migrant workers are the builders of our society – the builders of our economy. In the words of Minister Shanmugam, “These workers are here, they are helping us to make Singapore clean. They build our HDB flats. They build our buildings. They handle our waste management. They form the base of our economy and, therefore, they help us build our prosperity. You know, we say we have 57% of Singaporeans in PMET jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the base is built by foreigners. So, I think we have to appreciate what they do for us, and we have to have a better understanding and empathy.”
I am glad many Singaporeans have shown appreciation for the work migrant workers do for us. Our youths, like Kari, have been calling for our migrant workers to be better protected. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said, “We need to do more to look out and care for the more vulnerable amongst us, including our migrant workers”.
I hope we can start by looking into (a) improving their dormitory standards sooner; (b) ensuring that they have safe catered food; and (c) treating kickbacks as corruption.
The priority in this Budget and in our policies has to be Singaporeans. There is no doubt about that. But it does not mean that our migrant workers should be left out, left behind. To be the truly inclusive society we aspire to be, a shared future we talk about in this Budget must also include our migrant workers. To be a fair and just society, we cannot have one set of rules, guidelines and policies for Singaporeans and a different set for migrant workers.
Sir, I promise Jannat I would look after her father. We should look after all our migrant workers. I do this not just because of a promise, but because it is the right thing to do.
At the start of my speech, I talked about how our policies differentiate between “us” and “them”. I have shared this quote in Parliament previously, and I will share it again, “There is no us and them, only us – one human family connected in ways we sometimes forget.”
I hope our policies can continue to change and recognise that our one human family in Singapore includes our migrant workers.
Watch the speech here.