The following article was published in the Straits Times on 26 June 2008.
Another major shipyard accident
By TEH JOO LIN, JERMYN CHOW
The Straits Times
26/06/2008
Burnt worker is 23rd person to be killed or injured this month
A WORKER was badly burnt yesterday during a fire onboard a boat in a Tuas shipyard, the second major accident at the same facility in the last 10 days.
The 54-year-old man, believed to be the ship's engineer and a New Zealander, also became the 23rd person either injured or killed in shipyard accidents this month.
He was rushed to hospital where he was warded with second-degree burns. He was said to be in a stable condition.
The blaze was the second accident since June17 at Drydocks World Singapore – part of an international ship- repair firm – and the latest in a rash of accidents that have rocked the shipping industry.
This month, shipyard accidents have claimed the lives of five workers and injured 18 others.
That tally includes two workers who recently died after being badly burnt in an explosion earlier this month.
Yesterday's fire came just a week after safety officials urged shipyards to call an unprecedented "time-out" from work to review safety procedures. So far, at least 26 out of the 89 shipyards here have responded to the call.
Drydocks was said to have conducted a time-out last Friday. The fire yesterday happened onboard the Pacific Sentinel, a supply vessel that docked at the Drydocks yard earlier in the week, according to workers there.
The blaze apparently began in a compartment near the engine room. The Straits Times understands the engineer was doing repair work there.
At the same shipyard last Tuesday, two Indian nationals died and five others were injured while working below deck on another ship. It appeared to be a case of gas poisoning.
A Manpower Ministry spokesman said all work at Drydocks had been stopped.
In a separate accident on Sunday in Pasir Panjang, four crewmen onboard a container vessel were scalded by steam and hot water.
The run of deaths and injuries comes at a time when the shipping sector is enjoying a boom in business.
Last year, the marine and offshore industry – largely the ship-repair and offshore sectors – rang in $13.05billion in total output – a 33per cent jump from 2006.
Madam Halimah Yacob, a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, said the flurry of work creates tight deadlines, but worker safety should be the top priority.
"Workers must internalise the safety ethos and be conscious of safety all the time... or complacency can set in. That is when it becomes very dangerous."
Meanwhile, inspectors this week began checks which focus on the safety protocols at shipyards.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Worker dies at construction site
Worker dies at construction site
The New Paper, p.10
23/06/2008
A WORKER who was trapped on a tower crane yesterday morning has died.
SCDF received a call that the worker was trapped in a cat ladder of a tower crane at a construction site at No39, West Coast Park Road.
On arrival, the crew found that there was an unconscious male worker, approximately 50 years old, trapped on the 14th level of the tower crane.
SCDF officers immediately deployed a safety belt to secure him and subsequently lowered him using a hoisting rescue device.
The casualty was pronounced dead by an SCDF paramedic at 11am.
The New Paper, p.10
23/06/2008
A WORKER who was trapped on a tower crane yesterday morning has died.
SCDF received a call that the worker was trapped in a cat ladder of a tower crane at a construction site at No39, West Coast Park Road.
On arrival, the crew found that there was an unconscious male worker, approximately 50 years old, trapped on the 14th level of the tower crane.
SCDF officers immediately deployed a safety belt to secure him and subsequently lowered him using a hoisting rescue device.
The casualty was pronounced dead by an SCDF paramedic at 11am.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
MOM introduces new conditions to protect foreign workers
The following article was published in The Business Times on 21 June 2008.
MOM introduces new conditions to protect foreign workers
The Business Times
21/06/2008
TO better safeguard the well-being of foreign workers here, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is introducing new Work Permit and S Pass conditions that make clear certain malpractices by employers and employment agencies are offences.
From July 14, it is an offence for employers to receive payment, monetary or in kind, from a Work Permit holder or employment agent in return for employing the permit holder.
Employers are also prohibited from recovering employment-related expenses, such as the levy and security bond, from their Work Permit holders.
These new conditions will also apply to employers of S Pass holders.
A new Employment Agency (EA) Licence Condition will also be introduced from July 14 that prohibits employment agencies from offering payment, monetary or in kind, to employers in exchange for hiring foreign workers through them.
"The new conditions will make it clear to employers and employment agencies that such errant practices constitute an offence," said Aw Kum Cheong, divisional director of the foreign manpower management division at MOM. "The ministry will take stern action against those who breach the new conditions."
Employers in breach will be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to six months under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. They will also be barred from employing foreign workers, MOM said.
Employment agencies that breach the new EA licence condition will have their licences revoked and will forfeit their security deposit.
MOM introduces new conditions to protect foreign workers
The Business Times
21/06/2008
TO better safeguard the well-being of foreign workers here, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is introducing new Work Permit and S Pass conditions that make clear certain malpractices by employers and employment agencies are offences.
From July 14, it is an offence for employers to receive payment, monetary or in kind, from a Work Permit holder or employment agent in return for employing the permit holder.
Employers are also prohibited from recovering employment-related expenses, such as the levy and security bond, from their Work Permit holders.
These new conditions will also apply to employers of S Pass holders.
A new Employment Agency (EA) Licence Condition will also be introduced from July 14 that prohibits employment agencies from offering payment, monetary or in kind, to employers in exchange for hiring foreign workers through them.
"The new conditions will make it clear to employers and employment agencies that such errant practices constitute an offence," said Aw Kum Cheong, divisional director of the foreign manpower management division at MOM. "The ministry will take stern action against those who breach the new conditions."
Employers in breach will be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to six months under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. They will also be barred from employing foreign workers, MOM said.
Employment agencies that breach the new EA licence condition will have their licences revoked and will forfeit their security deposit.
Stiff penalty if bosses take kickbacks for hiring workers
The following article was published in The Straits Times on 21 June 2008.
Stiff penalty if bosses take kickbacks for hiring workers
KEITH LIN
The Straits Times
21/06/2008
NEW rules will kick in on July 14, making it a crime for employers to accept kickbacks to hire foreign workers.
Employment agencies making such offers will also be running afoul of the law.
The Manpower Ministry yesterday provided details on the new rules, which were first announced in Parliament two months ago.
Work permits and S-passes for foreign workers will now come with the condition that their employers cannot receive payment – whether in cash or kind – when they hire them.
It will also be illegal for bosses to recover employment-related expenses, such as the levy and security bond, from these workers.
Bosses who breach the new rules face a fine of up to $5,000 or six months' jail, or both. They will also be barred from hiring foreign workers in future.
For employment agencies, their licences will now come with the condition that they cannot offer employers payment in exchange for hiring foreign workers through them.
Recalcitrant agencies will have their licences revoked and security deposits forfeited.
Recent reports have highlighted a surge in agents offering bosses $2,000 to $3,000 for every China worker they hired.
Employers use the money to offset the foreign worker levy, which is between $240 and $450 a month for an unskilled worker.
Those in the food and beverage industry say kickbacks have been around for a few years, but they intensified in the second half of last year after foreign-worker laws were liberalised in July to allow Chinese nationals to work in coffee shops and restaurants.
Mr Hong Poh Hin, chairman of the Singapore Foochow Coffee Restaurant and Bar Merchants Association, hired a Chinese national at his coffee shop and received $2,000 from an agent last year. "Now, with the law making very clear that such practices are illegal, we will have no choice but to comply," he said.
Mr Jolovan Wham, executive director of welfare group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, said workers often pay up to $9,000 in fees to an agent. Part of this goes into the flight ticket to Singapore and other costs involved in securing a job for them. The remainder is shared between the employer – in the form of the kickbacks – and the agent.
"For the worker, kickbacks are a huge risk," said Mr Wham. "The employer's unilateral right to cancel the work permit means the amount may not pay off if things go wrong during his period of employment."
Labour MP Halimah Yacob said the new rules will deter employers from turning to foreign workers unnecessarily.
"With the rebates made illegal, employers will have to consider the foreign levy and other expenses, before deciding whether to hire one," she said.
Stiff penalty if bosses take kickbacks for hiring workers
KEITH LIN
The Straits Times
21/06/2008
NEW rules will kick in on July 14, making it a crime for employers to accept kickbacks to hire foreign workers.
Employment agencies making such offers will also be running afoul of the law.
The Manpower Ministry yesterday provided details on the new rules, which were first announced in Parliament two months ago.
Work permits and S-passes for foreign workers will now come with the condition that their employers cannot receive payment – whether in cash or kind – when they hire them.
It will also be illegal for bosses to recover employment-related expenses, such as the levy and security bond, from these workers.
Bosses who breach the new rules face a fine of up to $5,000 or six months' jail, or both. They will also be barred from hiring foreign workers in future.
For employment agencies, their licences will now come with the condition that they cannot offer employers payment in exchange for hiring foreign workers through them.
Recalcitrant agencies will have their licences revoked and security deposits forfeited.
Recent reports have highlighted a surge in agents offering bosses $2,000 to $3,000 for every China worker they hired.
Employers use the money to offset the foreign worker levy, which is between $240 and $450 a month for an unskilled worker.
Those in the food and beverage industry say kickbacks have been around for a few years, but they intensified in the second half of last year after foreign-worker laws were liberalised in July to allow Chinese nationals to work in coffee shops and restaurants.
Mr Hong Poh Hin, chairman of the Singapore Foochow Coffee Restaurant and Bar Merchants Association, hired a Chinese national at his coffee shop and received $2,000 from an agent last year. "Now, with the law making very clear that such practices are illegal, we will have no choice but to comply," he said.
Mr Jolovan Wham, executive director of welfare group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, said workers often pay up to $9,000 in fees to an agent. Part of this goes into the flight ticket to Singapore and other costs involved in securing a job for them. The remainder is shared between the employer – in the form of the kickbacks – and the agent.
"For the worker, kickbacks are a huge risk," said Mr Wham. "The employer's unilateral right to cancel the work permit means the amount may not pay off if things go wrong during his period of employment."
Labour MP Halimah Yacob said the new rules will deter employers from turning to foreign workers unnecessarily.
"With the rebates made illegal, employers will have to consider the foreign levy and other expenses, before deciding whether to hire one," she said.
Getting payment for hiring workers illegal
The following article was published in The New Paper on 21 June 2008.
Getting payment for hiring workers illegal
The New Paper
21/06/2008
MOM's new rule on hiring foreign workers
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will introduce new rules to better safeguard the well-being of foreign workers and prevent distortions of the labour market.
Starting from 14 Jul, employers cannot receive payment, whether monetary or in kind, when hiring a work permit or S-pass holder.
Employers will also be prohibited from recovering employment-related expenses, such as the levy and security bond, from their work permit or S-pass holders.
Those who breach the new conditions will be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to six months under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
They will also be barred from employing foreign workers in the future.
For employment agencies, their licences will now come with the condition that they cannot offer employers payment in exchange for hiring foreign workers through them.
Employment agencies that breach the new condition will have their licences revoked and security deposit forfeited.
The new rules were raised in Parliament in April following media reports on the increasing number of agents offering employers $2,000 to $3,000 for every China worker they hired.
Employers use the money to cover the foreign worker levy of $240 to $450 a month for an unskilled worker.
Mr Aw Kum Cheong, divisional director of the ministry's foreign manpower management division, said: "The new conditions will make it clear to employers and employment agencies that such errant practices constitute an offence. The Ministry will take stern action against those who breach the new conditions."
Members of the public with enquiries on the above may call the ministry at 6438-5122 or go to its website www.mom.gov.sg for more details.
Getting payment for hiring workers illegal
The New Paper
21/06/2008
MOM's new rule on hiring foreign workers
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will introduce new rules to better safeguard the well-being of foreign workers and prevent distortions of the labour market.
Starting from 14 Jul, employers cannot receive payment, whether monetary or in kind, when hiring a work permit or S-pass holder.
Employers will also be prohibited from recovering employment-related expenses, such as the levy and security bond, from their work permit or S-pass holders.
Those who breach the new conditions will be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to six months under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
They will also be barred from employing foreign workers in the future.
For employment agencies, their licences will now come with the condition that they cannot offer employers payment in exchange for hiring foreign workers through them.
Employment agencies that breach the new condition will have their licences revoked and security deposit forfeited.
The new rules were raised in Parliament in April following media reports on the increasing number of agents offering employers $2,000 to $3,000 for every China worker they hired.
Employers use the money to cover the foreign worker levy of $240 to $450 a month for an unskilled worker.
Mr Aw Kum Cheong, divisional director of the ministry's foreign manpower management division, said: "The new conditions will make it clear to employers and employment agencies that such errant practices constitute an offence. The Ministry will take stern action against those who breach the new conditions."
Members of the public with enquiries on the above may call the ministry at 6438-5122 or go to its website www.mom.gov.sg for more details.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Agencies not doing enough to train maids
The following letter was published in My Paper on 17 June 2008.
Agencies not doing enough to train maids
My Paper
17/06/2008
MY SAY
MAID agencies are the ones who bring in the maids and they must provide the most suitable candidates for the job.
Often, it is stated in the maid's bio-data that she can speak a little English but, in reality, they cannot speak or understand even that "little" English.
Moreover, the agencies are supposed to provide some training for the maids after they arrive in Singapore.
However, we, the employers, often end up having to teach them everything. And it is difficult for us to train them if they do not understand a single word of English.
The training they receive in their hometown is not sufficient as the expectations of employers here are different, because of the different standard of living and lifestyle.
Agencies need to play a bigger role in terms of providing good training to prepare them for employment, so that the maids would have some knowledge of what is expected of them.
The Manpower Ministry should, perhaps, make it compulsory for agencies to train the maids for a minimum of two weeks in Singapore in areas such as housekeeping and care for the elderly and children.
Maid agencies should be responsible for providing maids that are well trained, capable and suitable for employment.
Ms Thangavelu V. Sheila
Agencies not doing enough to train maids
My Paper
17/06/2008
MY SAY
MAID agencies are the ones who bring in the maids and they must provide the most suitable candidates for the job.
Often, it is stated in the maid's bio-data that she can speak a little English but, in reality, they cannot speak or understand even that "little" English.
Moreover, the agencies are supposed to provide some training for the maids after they arrive in Singapore.
However, we, the employers, often end up having to teach them everything. And it is difficult for us to train them if they do not understand a single word of English.
The training they receive in their hometown is not sufficient as the expectations of employers here are different, because of the different standard of living and lifestyle.
Agencies need to play a bigger role in terms of providing good training to prepare them for employment, so that the maids would have some knowledge of what is expected of them.
The Manpower Ministry should, perhaps, make it compulsory for agencies to train the maids for a minimum of two weeks in Singapore in areas such as housekeeping and care for the elderly and children.
Maid agencies should be responsible for providing maids that are well trained, capable and suitable for employment.
Ms Thangavelu V. Sheila
Friday, June 13, 2008
Human rights: Going beyond Internet chatter
The following article was published in The Straits Times on 13 June 2008.
Human rights: Going beyond Internet chatter
By CLARISSA OON
The Straits Times
13/06/2008
CYBER MATTERS
Online debate is easy – the real challenge is in taking advocacy to the people
HUMAN rights have been the talk of Singapore's socio-political blogs this week after the Attorney-General criticised some "fanatics" for presuming that their view of individual rights is the correct one for all societies.
At a recent Law Society gathering, Professor Walter Woon warned against zealots who believe freedom of expression gives them the right to insult certain religions or use human rights to further their political agendas.
While Prof Woon later clarified in The Straits Times Forum page that he was not tarring all human rights advocates with the same brush of "fanaticism", it prompted at least two concerned bloggers to challenge his relativistic notion of rights.
Mr Ng E-Jay wrote on the blog site The Online Citizen that human rights are "basic, universal and inalienable" liberties, spanning social, political and economic rights and essential to the dignity of all human beings.
This is perhaps the most popular view of individual rights and has its roots in the wording of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
While Mr Ng highlighted "the rights to freedom of speech, association and assembly" as important but "routinely denied to Singaporeans", another blogger, Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong, was more concerned with other "everyday" and "seemingly mundane" "rights" that Singapore falls short on.
These include the right of overworked children to rest and leisure, and the right of maids – as any other worker – to regular days off.
After years of hearing about our social obligations, "the emergence of a rights-based discourse in Singapore is long overdue", wrote Mr Siew, a lawyer by training, on the same blog.
Both essays drew some 45 responses from netizens, the vast majority agreeing with them.
Yet, in the same breath, they questioned how to push such a rights-based discourse outside the cyber living room and into the real world.
Constraints such as Singapore's restrictions on public gatherings, its top-down political culture and apathy of the larger population were thrown up.
The long and winding road from online chatter to social action was aptly illustrated on Wednesday at a seminar at the Asia-Europe Foundation (Asef). Its subject was the feasibility of a human-rights commission for Asean, the 10-nation group of which Singapore is part.
Forty years after Asean's founding, a charter signed in November last year has finally resolved to create a body for the "promotion" and "protection" of human rights.
A working group of officials, academics and activists from across the region is exploring what shape that will take. They will put up a proposal to Asean foreign ministers at a meeting here next month.
Wednesday's seminar drew an audience of no more than 50 though it was advertised online. Most who attended were academics and civil society workers.
Another reality check came from the co-chairman of the regional working group, ProfessorVitit Muntarbhorn.
"It's totally silly to expect Asean to be a human rights organisation because it just isn't," said the Thai human rights expert and activist.
With its spotty human rights record, Asean is home to a politically diverse roster of nations ranging from the world's largest Muslim-majority democracy (Indonesia) to one of its most despotic military juntas (Myanmar).
ProfVitit's hope is that the regional human rights commission can, at the very least, be a regional mechanism of appeal for individuals who cannot turn to their own countries for justice.
Given that his group is advocating a commission rather than a court along the lines of the European Court of Human Rights, much boils down to the kind of powers Asean is prepared to give it.
On human rights, expect plenty of "knee-jerk" resistance from Asean politicians and bureaucrats, said seminar participant Michael Vatikiotis. He is Asia regional director for the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
In general, Asean has always been wary of formalising rules on how it operates as a body as these could open the way for interference in a region where national sovereignty is still seen as paramount, he observed.
Another problem is the lack of "strong, vibrant national human rights mechanisms", said legal and human rights scholar Maureen Maloney, another seminar participant.
Only four Asean countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines – have national human rights commissions.
However, the issue is whether such commissions are making any kind of impact, said Ms Cynthia Gabriel, the Malaysia-based regional coordinator of migrant worker group Caram Asia.
She noted that the Malaysian human rights commission produces reports "that don't get debated in Parliament" and its recommendations are "largely ignored".
The Malaysian commission was set up by the Malaysian Parliament in 1999 and has faced questions about its independence at various points in its history.
Civil society workers here are keeping their fingers crossed that the Singapore Government's willingness to play a major diplomatic role in Asean could translate eventually into a more open attitude towards rights issues.
While it is heartening to see the beginnings of rights-related debate here, at some point the abstract, purist online chatter has to give way to the real and difficult work of advocacy. The Asean human rights process is a good place to start.
True, there are basic human rights standards which advocates cannot lose sight of, but their work cannot be separated from politics. Human rights advocacy amounts to a kind of half-skirmish, half-dance with politicians.
While it is easy enough to become "activists" overnight through the Internet, there is no substitute for physical meetings and engagement with officialdom if one wants to get the ball rolling for social change, as long-time civil society workers will tell you.
As the Asef seminar concluded, the task ahead is to take the human rights debates offline, into parliaments and the pasar malam.
Human rights: Going beyond Internet chatter
By CLARISSA OON
The Straits Times
13/06/2008
CYBER MATTERS
Online debate is easy – the real challenge is in taking advocacy to the people
HUMAN rights have been the talk of Singapore's socio-political blogs this week after the Attorney-General criticised some "fanatics" for presuming that their view of individual rights is the correct one for all societies.
At a recent Law Society gathering, Professor Walter Woon warned against zealots who believe freedom of expression gives them the right to insult certain religions or use human rights to further their political agendas.
While Prof Woon later clarified in The Straits Times Forum page that he was not tarring all human rights advocates with the same brush of "fanaticism", it prompted at least two concerned bloggers to challenge his relativistic notion of rights.
Mr Ng E-Jay wrote on the blog site The Online Citizen that human rights are "basic, universal and inalienable" liberties, spanning social, political and economic rights and essential to the dignity of all human beings.
This is perhaps the most popular view of individual rights and has its roots in the wording of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
While Mr Ng highlighted "the rights to freedom of speech, association and assembly" as important but "routinely denied to Singaporeans", another blogger, Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong, was more concerned with other "everyday" and "seemingly mundane" "rights" that Singapore falls short on.
These include the right of overworked children to rest and leisure, and the right of maids – as any other worker – to regular days off.
After years of hearing about our social obligations, "the emergence of a rights-based discourse in Singapore is long overdue", wrote Mr Siew, a lawyer by training, on the same blog.
Both essays drew some 45 responses from netizens, the vast majority agreeing with them.
Yet, in the same breath, they questioned how to push such a rights-based discourse outside the cyber living room and into the real world.
Constraints such as Singapore's restrictions on public gatherings, its top-down political culture and apathy of the larger population were thrown up.
The long and winding road from online chatter to social action was aptly illustrated on Wednesday at a seminar at the Asia-Europe Foundation (Asef). Its subject was the feasibility of a human-rights commission for Asean, the 10-nation group of which Singapore is part.
Forty years after Asean's founding, a charter signed in November last year has finally resolved to create a body for the "promotion" and "protection" of human rights.
A working group of officials, academics and activists from across the region is exploring what shape that will take. They will put up a proposal to Asean foreign ministers at a meeting here next month.
Wednesday's seminar drew an audience of no more than 50 though it was advertised online. Most who attended were academics and civil society workers.
Another reality check came from the co-chairman of the regional working group, ProfessorVitit Muntarbhorn.
"It's totally silly to expect Asean to be a human rights organisation because it just isn't," said the Thai human rights expert and activist.
With its spotty human rights record, Asean is home to a politically diverse roster of nations ranging from the world's largest Muslim-majority democracy (Indonesia) to one of its most despotic military juntas (Myanmar).
ProfVitit's hope is that the regional human rights commission can, at the very least, be a regional mechanism of appeal for individuals who cannot turn to their own countries for justice.
Given that his group is advocating a commission rather than a court along the lines of the European Court of Human Rights, much boils down to the kind of powers Asean is prepared to give it.
On human rights, expect plenty of "knee-jerk" resistance from Asean politicians and bureaucrats, said seminar participant Michael Vatikiotis. He is Asia regional director for the Geneva-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
In general, Asean has always been wary of formalising rules on how it operates as a body as these could open the way for interference in a region where national sovereignty is still seen as paramount, he observed.
Another problem is the lack of "strong, vibrant national human rights mechanisms", said legal and human rights scholar Maureen Maloney, another seminar participant.
Only four Asean countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines – have national human rights commissions.
However, the issue is whether such commissions are making any kind of impact, said Ms Cynthia Gabriel, the Malaysia-based regional coordinator of migrant worker group Caram Asia.
She noted that the Malaysian human rights commission produces reports "that don't get debated in Parliament" and its recommendations are "largely ignored".
The Malaysian commission was set up by the Malaysian Parliament in 1999 and has faced questions about its independence at various points in its history.
Civil society workers here are keeping their fingers crossed that the Singapore Government's willingness to play a major diplomatic role in Asean could translate eventually into a more open attitude towards rights issues.
While it is heartening to see the beginnings of rights-related debate here, at some point the abstract, purist online chatter has to give way to the real and difficult work of advocacy. The Asean human rights process is a good place to start.
True, there are basic human rights standards which advocates cannot lose sight of, but their work cannot be separated from politics. Human rights advocacy amounts to a kind of half-skirmish, half-dance with politicians.
While it is easy enough to become "activists" overnight through the Internet, there is no substitute for physical meetings and engagement with officialdom if one wants to get the ball rolling for social change, as long-time civil society workers will tell you.
As the Asef seminar concluded, the task ahead is to take the human rights debates offline, into parliaments and the pasar malam.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Repairs on vessel almost done, then blast occurs
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 9 June 2008.
Repairs on vessel almost done, then blast occurs
By TEH JOO LIN, MELISSA SIM
The Straits Times
09/06/2008
Six of the 15 casualties are seriously injured
JUST before the lunch hour yesterday, the chief engineer of the 50m-long supply boat Rainbow Star was on board the ship, which was being repaired in a Tuas dock.
The next instant, a massive explosion rocked the vessel, blowing out the glass from its windows.
Mr Ustin Massappa, a 35-year-old Indonesian national, became a human pin cushion, as glass shards flew out and pierced his back.
What is believed to have been a flash fire broke out on the Belize-registered vessel, which was in the final stages of repair after having been berthed at Kreuz Shipbuilding & Engineering in Tuas Crescent for almost three months.
Mr Ustin, reckoning there were about 20 shipyard workers and the boat's crew on board, gathered his wits about him and immediately ordered the electricity supply to the ship to be turned off.
As the fire raged, those who were well enough quickly went around to look for those who were more seriously hurt.
A shipyard worker who was working near the wharf said that following the explosion, he saw plumes of white and orange smoke billowing from the ship.
The Chinese national, who declined to be named, said: "I heard a very loud "pong" sound. The whole boat was covered in smoke...It was very pungent and it stung, and those on board started shouting "Run! Run!"
The 15 casualties were helped off the vessel. The Chinese national said some could walk, but others had to be carried.
"A few of them had their skin burnt off...their faces, bodies and heads. They had no more overalls on them", he added.
All 15, either shipyard workers or crewmen, are foreigners.
Six are in the Singapore General Hospital (SGH). The other nine, who suffered cuts and smoke inhalation, were taken to the National University Hospital and Alexandra Hospital.
An SGH spokesman said that four of the six there were in intensive care, including a man in his 30s who suffered 90-per-cent burns on his body.
The Ministry of Manpower last night issued a stop-work order on all painting jobs at Kreuz.
It is not clear where the fire started, though the Singapore Civil Defence Force noted that the flames were confined to the vessel's 20m-by-5m bridge.
The Workplace Safety and Health Council and the Manpower Ministry have made it a priority to reduce the number of accidents due to fires, explosions and exposure to harmful substances.
Nine workers died in these kinds of accidents last year, compared to just one in 2006. The sectors at risk of them include the chemical and shipbuilding and repair industries.
A senior employee of Kreuz who declined to be named, would only say that the injured shipyard workers would be well taken care of.
Mr Juffri Abdullah, the administration and business development manager of Orchid Star, which owns the Rainbow Star, said the supply boat had been scheduled to set sail for Batam this week.
"The engine was tested last week. The work's all done - then this happened, so we are all shocked", he said.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY MELISSA SIM
Repairs on vessel almost done, then blast occurs
By TEH JOO LIN, MELISSA SIM
The Straits Times
09/06/2008
Six of the 15 casualties are seriously injured
JUST before the lunch hour yesterday, the chief engineer of the 50m-long supply boat Rainbow Star was on board the ship, which was being repaired in a Tuas dock.
The next instant, a massive explosion rocked the vessel, blowing out the glass from its windows.
Mr Ustin Massappa, a 35-year-old Indonesian national, became a human pin cushion, as glass shards flew out and pierced his back.
What is believed to have been a flash fire broke out on the Belize-registered vessel, which was in the final stages of repair after having been berthed at Kreuz Shipbuilding & Engineering in Tuas Crescent for almost three months.
Mr Ustin, reckoning there were about 20 shipyard workers and the boat's crew on board, gathered his wits about him and immediately ordered the electricity supply to the ship to be turned off.
As the fire raged, those who were well enough quickly went around to look for those who were more seriously hurt.
A shipyard worker who was working near the wharf said that following the explosion, he saw plumes of white and orange smoke billowing from the ship.
The Chinese national, who declined to be named, said: "I heard a very loud "pong" sound. The whole boat was covered in smoke...It was very pungent and it stung, and those on board started shouting "Run! Run!"
The 15 casualties were helped off the vessel. The Chinese national said some could walk, but others had to be carried.
"A few of them had their skin burnt off...their faces, bodies and heads. They had no more overalls on them", he added.
All 15, either shipyard workers or crewmen, are foreigners.
Six are in the Singapore General Hospital (SGH). The other nine, who suffered cuts and smoke inhalation, were taken to the National University Hospital and Alexandra Hospital.
An SGH spokesman said that four of the six there were in intensive care, including a man in his 30s who suffered 90-per-cent burns on his body.
The Ministry of Manpower last night issued a stop-work order on all painting jobs at Kreuz.
It is not clear where the fire started, though the Singapore Civil Defence Force noted that the flames were confined to the vessel's 20m-by-5m bridge.
The Workplace Safety and Health Council and the Manpower Ministry have made it a priority to reduce the number of accidents due to fires, explosions and exposure to harmful substances.
Nine workers died in these kinds of accidents last year, compared to just one in 2006. The sectors at risk of them include the chemical and shipbuilding and repair industries.
A senior employee of Kreuz who declined to be named, would only say that the injured shipyard workers would be well taken care of.
Mr Juffri Abdullah, the administration and business development manager of Orchid Star, which owns the Rainbow Star, said the supply boat had been scheduled to set sail for Batam this week.
"The engine was tested last week. The work's all done - then this happened, so we are all shocked", he said.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY MELISSA SIM
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Plight of Migrant Workers in Singapore
The following article was first published in the Straits Times on 19 July 2008.
Alone and exploited - pity our migrant workers
By John Gee
HERE is the plight of migrant workers I want Singaporeans – especially employers – to understand.
These are people who set out from their homes on journeys into the unknown and, along the way, many take a bite off them. There is the recruiter who turns up in a village with stories of the money to be made in wealthier lands. He wants money for his efforts, or perhaps to pay one or two locals whose cooperation he needs, such as a village headman. The worker goes to an agency, which may provide some form of training, obtain the necessary documents and arrange the next stage of the journey.
The agency wants money too: It tots up what it paid to the recruiter, its own charges for the worker's travel expenses, accommodation, food and training, as well as its fee. Depending on the country of origin's regulations, charges are made by the national government for passports, insurance or other documentation. In due course, the worker will be expected to pay to obtain, in principle, approval from Singapore.
These charges amount to a hefty sum. Migrant workers are not expected to pay for them immediately in most sender countries: After all, people who had the money to do that would probably not need to seek work abroad in the first place.
So the agency in the sender country is paid by a partner agency in Singapore, which then needs to recover the money it has paid out and adds its own set of fees for the services it provides.
The sum of money involved by this time for a Filipino or Indonesian domestic worker approaches $2,000. The amount is much higher for a male construction worker from southern India or Bangladesh – a Bangladeshi will typically start work in Singapore carrying a debt of $8,000 to $9,000.
When the Government opened the doors to the recruitment of overseas domestic workers in 1978, it was commonly accepted that the costs of recruitment would be borne by employers.
Over time, a change has crept in. Competing for customers, some agencies offered bargains that many employers found irresistible: the "$0 maid" or the "$88 maid". The price for this generosity was to be paid by the workers. Their employers were given a "loan" for their hire, and it was paid back by deductions from the workers' salaries.
And thus it is that people who seek work abroad to support their families and pay for the education of children or siblings often find themselves paying to be employed by wealthier people.
The burden of this debt has grown as the various charges made have crept up without a matching increase in workers' salaries. Payments of between $240 and $300 per month for a new worker are usual, despite the efforts of sender countries to promote increments.
In 2000, a domestic worker was able to repay the "loan" within the first six months of her employment. Today, it takes eight to 10 months. That makes a big hole in their earnings from a first two-year contract term. At least a third of her income is lost before her family sees a cent of it.
This repayment period is extended if the worker decides she wants to transfer to another employer, for any reason. Some agencies will charge her more than the real cost of processing the documents she needs, and she will pay the equivalent of about a month's salary.
If she is less fortunate, she might be charged two to four months' salary. This does not seem consistent with the claim made by some employers that domestic workers are inclined to flit from one employer to another on a mere whim. On the contrary, most know how expensive and troublesome it can be to change employers and will not do so unless there is reason to.
This is not the end of the story. To leave behind one's family can be hard, but some workers have the heart-rending experience of realising that those they have sacrificed their labour to support are growing away from them.
Instead of intimate family conversations and letters, communication turns into a routine report attached to a request for more money. Stories abound of workers who return home to meet young children who do not recognise them and to find out that the money they have worked so hard for has been misspent.
A return home also means parting with more earnings. The terminal for domestic workers at Jakarta's main airport has long been notorious. There, parasites extract money from returning workers for giving back their passports to them after taking them by deceit, or for transporting them home at exorbitant prices.
Workers also bring back gifts for their families. Often, they would like to be seen in their home communities as successful, so that can mean spending money on entertaining friends and neighbours. Sometimes, remote acquaintances and long-lost relatives show up as well.
Migrant workers subsidise their host economy by providing it with lowly priced labour, and freeing up many of its own citizens to take up better-paid jobs. The sender country gains a valuable supplement to its national income directly through fees and indirectly through the spending of remitted money. Often they return home with their best years behind them and little to show for it all.
The Ministry of Manpower recently introduced changes to prevent additional transfers of costs that employers should bear for domestic workers. However, it did nothing to induce employers to pay the costs that had been transferred to workers in the past and instead produced a chorus of protests from employers who said they were being exploited by their workers.
Do they really know what exploitation means? If they could put themselves in a migrant worker's shoes for a couple of months, they would not think that way. To them, I say, be kinder to the migrant worker in your employment.
The writer is the president of Transient Workers Count Too, an advocacy group for migrant workers.
Alone and exploited - pity our migrant workers
By John Gee
HERE is the plight of migrant workers I want Singaporeans – especially employers – to understand.
These are people who set out from their homes on journeys into the unknown and, along the way, many take a bite off them. There is the recruiter who turns up in a village with stories of the money to be made in wealthier lands. He wants money for his efforts, or perhaps to pay one or two locals whose cooperation he needs, such as a village headman. The worker goes to an agency, which may provide some form of training, obtain the necessary documents and arrange the next stage of the journey.
The agency wants money too: It tots up what it paid to the recruiter, its own charges for the worker's travel expenses, accommodation, food and training, as well as its fee. Depending on the country of origin's regulations, charges are made by the national government for passports, insurance or other documentation. In due course, the worker will be expected to pay to obtain, in principle, approval from Singapore.
These charges amount to a hefty sum. Migrant workers are not expected to pay for them immediately in most sender countries: After all, people who had the money to do that would probably not need to seek work abroad in the first place.
So the agency in the sender country is paid by a partner agency in Singapore, which then needs to recover the money it has paid out and adds its own set of fees for the services it provides.
The sum of money involved by this time for a Filipino or Indonesian domestic worker approaches $2,000. The amount is much higher for a male construction worker from southern India or Bangladesh – a Bangladeshi will typically start work in Singapore carrying a debt of $8,000 to $9,000.
When the Government opened the doors to the recruitment of overseas domestic workers in 1978, it was commonly accepted that the costs of recruitment would be borne by employers.
Over time, a change has crept in. Competing for customers, some agencies offered bargains that many employers found irresistible: the "$0 maid" or the "$88 maid". The price for this generosity was to be paid by the workers. Their employers were given a "loan" for their hire, and it was paid back by deductions from the workers' salaries.
And thus it is that people who seek work abroad to support their families and pay for the education of children or siblings often find themselves paying to be employed by wealthier people.
The burden of this debt has grown as the various charges made have crept up without a matching increase in workers' salaries. Payments of between $240 and $300 per month for a new worker are usual, despite the efforts of sender countries to promote increments.
In 2000, a domestic worker was able to repay the "loan" within the first six months of her employment. Today, it takes eight to 10 months. That makes a big hole in their earnings from a first two-year contract term. At least a third of her income is lost before her family sees a cent of it.
This repayment period is extended if the worker decides she wants to transfer to another employer, for any reason. Some agencies will charge her more than the real cost of processing the documents she needs, and she will pay the equivalent of about a month's salary.
If she is less fortunate, she might be charged two to four months' salary. This does not seem consistent with the claim made by some employers that domestic workers are inclined to flit from one employer to another on a mere whim. On the contrary, most know how expensive and troublesome it can be to change employers and will not do so unless there is reason to.
This is not the end of the story. To leave behind one's family can be hard, but some workers have the heart-rending experience of realising that those they have sacrificed their labour to support are growing away from them.
Instead of intimate family conversations and letters, communication turns into a routine report attached to a request for more money. Stories abound of workers who return home to meet young children who do not recognise them and to find out that the money they have worked so hard for has been misspent.
A return home also means parting with more earnings. The terminal for domestic workers at Jakarta's main airport has long been notorious. There, parasites extract money from returning workers for giving back their passports to them after taking them by deceit, or for transporting them home at exorbitant prices.
Workers also bring back gifts for their families. Often, they would like to be seen in their home communities as successful, so that can mean spending money on entertaining friends and neighbours. Sometimes, remote acquaintances and long-lost relatives show up as well.
Migrant workers subsidise their host economy by providing it with lowly priced labour, and freeing up many of its own citizens to take up better-paid jobs. The sender country gains a valuable supplement to its national income directly through fees and indirectly through the spending of remitted money. Often they return home with their best years behind them and little to show for it all.
The Ministry of Manpower recently introduced changes to prevent additional transfers of costs that employers should bear for domestic workers. However, it did nothing to induce employers to pay the costs that had been transferred to workers in the past and instead produced a chorus of protests from employers who said they were being exploited by their workers.
Do they really know what exploitation means? If they could put themselves in a migrant worker's shoes for a couple of months, they would not think that way. To them, I say, be kinder to the migrant worker in your employment.
The writer is the president of Transient Workers Count Too, an advocacy group for migrant workers.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Company Director Fined More Than $87,000 for Abetting the Illegal Employment of Foreign Students
The following press release was posted by the Ministry of Manpower on 6 June 2008.
Company Director Fined More Than $87,000 for Abetting the Illegal Employment of Foreign Students
06 June 2008
Yeo Tian Ming Benedict, the director of International Cuisine Association of Singapore (ICAS), was convicted of 14 charges under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (EFWA) and fined $87,360 for abetting the illegal employment of 42 foreign students. Another 28 charges were taken into consideration during his sentencing on 28 May 2008.
Facts of the Case
2. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) investigations revealed that between November 2005 to November 2007, Yeo had sent 42 foreign students from ICAS and other private schools in Singapore, to work as waiters at various restaurants. Yeo had informed the restaurants that the foreign students would not be considered as the restaurants' employees and were merely on industrial attachment and could therefore work for them. These foreign students, who were paid monthly salaries of between $400 to $800, did not hold valid Work Permits to work in the restaurants.
Employing Foreign Students without Valid Work Passes is an Offence
3. Mr Aw Kum Cheong, Divisional Director of the Foreign Manpower Management Division, MOM said: "The defendant deceived both the foreign students and employers into believing that the arrangement was legal. MOM will not hesitate to prosecute individuals who perpetrate such frauds. We would also like to remind the public that it is an employer's duty to ensure that the foreign students they employ have valid work passes. Foreigners on Student Passes are not allowed to work in Singapore unless they have been granted work pass exemptions or have applied for the relevant training pass1.”
4. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EMFA), any person caught employing foreigners without valid work passes is punishable with a fine of up to $15,000 and / or jailed up to 12 months. This will be over and above the restitution of any levy evaded. Any person who abets the illegal employment of foreigners will also face the same penalties. Foreigners caught working illegally can be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months.
1Foreign students are not allowed to work in Singapore during term time or vacation time unless they are granted Work Pass exemption under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Pass Exemptions) Notifications. Foreign students who wish to undergo any form of industrial attachment must apply for relevant training pass. For a list of institutions that were granted work pass exemptions, please visit the MOM website.
Company Director Fined More Than $87,000 for Abetting the Illegal Employment of Foreign Students
06 June 2008
Yeo Tian Ming Benedict, the director of International Cuisine Association of Singapore (ICAS), was convicted of 14 charges under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (EFWA) and fined $87,360 for abetting the illegal employment of 42 foreign students. Another 28 charges were taken into consideration during his sentencing on 28 May 2008.
Facts of the Case
2. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) investigations revealed that between November 2005 to November 2007, Yeo had sent 42 foreign students from ICAS and other private schools in Singapore, to work as waiters at various restaurants. Yeo had informed the restaurants that the foreign students would not be considered as the restaurants' employees and were merely on industrial attachment and could therefore work for them. These foreign students, who were paid monthly salaries of between $400 to $800, did not hold valid Work Permits to work in the restaurants.
Employing Foreign Students without Valid Work Passes is an Offence
3. Mr Aw Kum Cheong, Divisional Director of the Foreign Manpower Management Division, MOM said: "The defendant deceived both the foreign students and employers into believing that the arrangement was legal. MOM will not hesitate to prosecute individuals who perpetrate such frauds. We would also like to remind the public that it is an employer's duty to ensure that the foreign students they employ have valid work passes. Foreigners on Student Passes are not allowed to work in Singapore unless they have been granted work pass exemptions or have applied for the relevant training pass1.”
4. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EMFA), any person caught employing foreigners without valid work passes is punishable with a fine of up to $15,000 and / or jailed up to 12 months. This will be over and above the restitution of any levy evaded. Any person who abets the illegal employment of foreigners will also face the same penalties. Foreigners caught working illegally can be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months.
1Foreign students are not allowed to work in Singapore during term time or vacation time unless they are granted Work Pass exemption under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Pass Exemptions) Notifications. Foreign students who wish to undergo any form of industrial attachment must apply for relevant training pass. For a list of institutions that were granted work pass exemptions, please visit the MOM website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)