The following article was published in the New Paper on 23 Oct 2008.
I am scared doctors will cut off my leg
By Tan May Ping
23 October 2008
The New Paper
Foreign worker who hurts leg badly in accident fends for himself & waits for more than a year for compensation
SINGAPORE was supposed to be his solution to a better life. Now that life, along with his hopes and future, is in limbo.
It has been so for more than a year, after his right leg was crushed in a horrific accident at work.
Now Indian national Mr Boominathan Sellathurai, 25, claims he has had to practically fend for himself.
Although his employer, Cimelia Resource Recovery, an electronics waste recycling firm, paid for his initial medical bills amounting to about $33,000, he has barely heard from them since February.
He now has outstanding medical bills of more than $50,000 and is unable to pay for them. He is waiting for the outcome of his compensation claim, but that is being delayed because doctors need time to assess complications to his leg.
'I was so scared because many times I thought the doctors would cut off my leg,' said Mr Boominathan, who estimates that he has undergone at least 15 operations on his leg.
Scared to see bone
Before the accident, he said he was happy working with the company, where he was a general worker for 16 months.
His job was to dismantle electronic equipment and to sort the different component materials. He was paid about $1,000 a month, including overtime pay.
Prior to coming to Singapore, he was an electrician in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. He paid an agent $8,000 to help him find work here.
The accident changed all that. A forklift driver moving a two-tonne load did not see Mr Boominathan, who was squatting while labelling some crates, and drove into him, pinning him against the crates.
The impact broke a bone in his right leg, and tore off skin and flesh. He was rushed to the National University Hospital (NUH) and operated on that night.
He recalled: 'I was scared because I could see my bone sticking out. It was very painful until the ambulance came and they gave me an injection.'
He had a metal piece and screws inserted into his leg, and also underwent skin and muscle grafts.
When he was discharged, his employer sent him back to the company's accommodation - a three-room HDB flat which he shared with 10 others - even though Mr Boominathan could not care for himself.
Mr Boominathan claimed: 'They (employer) gave me a plastic bag to vomit into. I couldn't even get up to go to the toilet or get water. They even wanted me to go to the office the next day just to sit there but I couldn't sit down for long.'
His employer eventually sent him to West Point Hospital in Taman Jurong to recuperate.
But, three months later, his condition still hadn't improved. He went for another operation to replace the screws and other metal parts in his leg.
He stayed at West Point Hospital from August last year to February, and then left on his own accord. He claimed he left because he was afraid his employer would send him back to India without any money.
Mr Boominathan claimed that during his stay at West Point Hospital, he tried calling his company many times, but no one went to see him.
'I had no choice (but to leave West Point). I didn't know what happened to my compensation claim. I had many problems but my employer didn't care,' he said.
'Before the accident, everything was okay.
'But after that, they were not happy because my injury did not get better, and I was always on MC.'
He borrowed money and moved to a lodging on Cuff Road in Little India, which charged him $150 a month.
The two-storey shophouse was also home to more than 60 men.
He said of his four months there: 'It was crowded and noisy, and I couldn't rest properly. There were only two toilets, and I couldn't bathe because the wound would get wet.'
Wouldn't it have been better for him if he had remained at West Point Hospital?
Mr Boominathan agreed, but said he genuinely feared he would be sent back to India empty-handed.
In June, he was back in hospital again after he got an infection. He stayed for a month at NUH and underwent more operations.
After he was discharged, a good Samaritan who came to know of his case took him in.
The 53-year-old woman, who did not want to be identified, said that she had space in her home to accommodate him.
'Boomi was severely depressed as there was a good chance they would have to amputate his leg,' she said.
Mr Boominathan said that he has engaged a lawyer to assist him in case the amount he gets from the Workmen's Compensation claim is insufficient.
But his case could take many months more as he has not completed his treatment.
His doctors need to assess how much of the use of his limb he has lost.
Mr Boominathan said that after the accident, the company paid his basic salary of $550 a month until last October, and then stopped the payments.
When contacted, a spokesman from his employer said that after Mr Boominathan went missing in February, the company was unable to contact him to help him. (See report, right.)
Mr Boominathan is currently on a long course of antibiotics, and has to regularly see three doctors for his bones, skin and infections. He had to use crutches for months, and switched to using a walking stick only last week.
'I hope I can get a good compensation, because I won't be able to do any heavy work anymore,' he said.
Copyright 2008, Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Foreign workers aren't modern-day slaves
The following article appeared in the Straits Times on 22 Oct 08.
'Foreign workers aren't modern-day slaves'
By Kor Kian Beng
22 October 2008
Straits Times
SINGAPORE has a responsibility to provide decent housing for foreign workers, the same way that Singaporeans enjoy decent living conditions.
That is why the authorities have resorted to various measures to ensure there is adequate housing for the growing number of foreign workers here, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said.
He was responding to Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC), who said: 'Can I ask the minister whether he agrees that as a decent society, it is our duty to provide the foreign workers in our midst with decent and humane housing so they can come here and earn an honest wage and not feel like modern-day slaves in Singapore?'
He agreed, saying it was Singapore's responsibility to ensure that foreign workers, indeed all workers, just like Singaporeans, were housed in decent conditions.
That was why several approaches are taken. These include allowing workers to rent houses or flats, converting factories into dormitories, building dormitories on site especially for construction workers, and building permanent dormitories.
But temporary dormitories - such as the former school at Serangoon Gardens - are needed as there is still a shortage of accommodation. This is due to an exceptional surge in worker numbers sparked by strong economic growth in the last few years.
The situation may remain that way for a while, Mr Mah told Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC), who asked if an economic slowdown would see a dip in numbers.
The reason? Construction demand remains high.
Mr Mah said construction demand this year is expected to reach $30 billion, up from $17 billion in 2006. This was a key factor behind the spike in the number of foreign workers, which went up by 102,000 last year to 577,000.
'I can say that at this moment and in fact for the next year - because the demand, especially for construction workers, is still going to be there and projects are still ongoing - I don't foresee there will be a drastic drop in demand for foreign workers,' Mr Mah said.
One challenge in housing foreign workers is the constraints posed by a land-scarce Singapore, he added.
While the authorities have tried to locate dormitories away from residential areas, it was not possible to totally segregate foreign workers from the local community. 'Singaporeans don't want to see foreign workers near their residential areas or using common facilities.
'This would set a physical limit on the number of foreign workers we can accommodate, which will limit economic growth, raise costs of doing business and costs of living in general.'
This could also lead to more illegal housing or overcrowded living conditions that could pose health and safety risks for foreign workers and Singaporeans alike.
Acting Minister for Manpower Gan Kim Yong also weighed in on the issue, saying he believes Singaporeans can develop a more inclusive mentality: 'We can work together to improve the overall environment to make Singapore more inclusive, and at the same time understand the stress and the tension that exists and find solutions to address these issues.'
Mr Mah also gave an insight into how his ministry chooses a potential dormitory site.
It looks at available sites and takes into account factors such as competing uses for the vacant state land or property. A technical feasibility study is also carried out which includes liaising with agencies on issues such as traffic, sewers, health and safety buffers.
If a site is suitable, the constituency adviser and grassroots leaders are consulted. Concerns they raise will be looked into and ways found to minimise them.
'There is a responsibility for us to make sure that foreign workers and indeed all workers, just like all Singaporeans, are housed in decent conditions.'Mr Mah Bow Tan
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
'Foreign workers aren't modern-day slaves'
By Kor Kian Beng
22 October 2008
Straits Times
SINGAPORE has a responsibility to provide decent housing for foreign workers, the same way that Singaporeans enjoy decent living conditions.
That is why the authorities have resorted to various measures to ensure there is adequate housing for the growing number of foreign workers here, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said.
He was responding to Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC), who said: 'Can I ask the minister whether he agrees that as a decent society, it is our duty to provide the foreign workers in our midst with decent and humane housing so they can come here and earn an honest wage and not feel like modern-day slaves in Singapore?'
He agreed, saying it was Singapore's responsibility to ensure that foreign workers, indeed all workers, just like Singaporeans, were housed in decent conditions.
That was why several approaches are taken. These include allowing workers to rent houses or flats, converting factories into dormitories, building dormitories on site especially for construction workers, and building permanent dormitories.
But temporary dormitories - such as the former school at Serangoon Gardens - are needed as there is still a shortage of accommodation. This is due to an exceptional surge in worker numbers sparked by strong economic growth in the last few years.
The situation may remain that way for a while, Mr Mah told Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC), who asked if an economic slowdown would see a dip in numbers.
The reason? Construction demand remains high.
Mr Mah said construction demand this year is expected to reach $30 billion, up from $17 billion in 2006. This was a key factor behind the spike in the number of foreign workers, which went up by 102,000 last year to 577,000.
'I can say that at this moment and in fact for the next year - because the demand, especially for construction workers, is still going to be there and projects are still ongoing - I don't foresee there will be a drastic drop in demand for foreign workers,' Mr Mah said.
One challenge in housing foreign workers is the constraints posed by a land-scarce Singapore, he added.
While the authorities have tried to locate dormitories away from residential areas, it was not possible to totally segregate foreign workers from the local community. 'Singaporeans don't want to see foreign workers near their residential areas or using common facilities.
'This would set a physical limit on the number of foreign workers we can accommodate, which will limit economic growth, raise costs of doing business and costs of living in general.'
This could also lead to more illegal housing or overcrowded living conditions that could pose health and safety risks for foreign workers and Singaporeans alike.
Acting Minister for Manpower Gan Kim Yong also weighed in on the issue, saying he believes Singaporeans can develop a more inclusive mentality: 'We can work together to improve the overall environment to make Singapore more inclusive, and at the same time understand the stress and the tension that exists and find solutions to address these issues.'
Mr Mah also gave an insight into how his ministry chooses a potential dormitory site.
It looks at available sites and takes into account factors such as competing uses for the vacant state land or property. A technical feasibility study is also carried out which includes liaising with agencies on issues such as traffic, sewers, health and safety buffers.
If a site is suitable, the constituency adviser and grassroots leaders are consulted. Concerns they raise will be looked into and ways found to minimise them.
'There is a responsibility for us to make sure that foreign workers and indeed all workers, just like all Singaporeans, are housed in decent conditions.'Mr Mah Bow Tan
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
In Trouble Over Love - When Work Permit Holders Marry Singaporeans
The following article was published in The New Paper on 21 Oct 2008.
IN TROUBLE OVER LOVE
The New Paper
21/10/2008
1 In 2004 , Mr Gan Wei Keong, a Malaysian who had been working as a food delivery man here, had his work permit cancelled and was given seven days to leave Singapore because he had married a Singaporean PR.
Ironically, the authorities found out he had married a Singapore PR only when he applied to become a PR himself.
2 41-year-old Singaporean security officer Ganesan Ramayah met Indian national Kurusamy Kala in 1993 while she was working here as a maid. They married in 1995 – after her contract had ended – but neither knew they had broken the law.
In 2001, the violation was discovered and Madam Kurusamy was forced to leave Singapore.
3 Malaysian Loh Kwai Yit, 39, was a work permit holder here before she married nightclub manager Melvin Lee Seng Kim, 59.
In January 2000, they got married in Malaysia. Mr Lee then tried to get a long-term social visit pass for his wife.
Instead, he found that she could not enter Singapore at all, as she had broken one of the conditions of her previous work permit by marrying him.
IN TROUBLE OVER LOVE
The New Paper
21/10/2008
1 In 2004 , Mr Gan Wei Keong, a Malaysian who had been working as a food delivery man here, had his work permit cancelled and was given seven days to leave Singapore because he had married a Singaporean PR.
Ironically, the authorities found out he had married a Singapore PR only when he applied to become a PR himself.
2 41-year-old Singaporean security officer Ganesan Ramayah met Indian national Kurusamy Kala in 1993 while she was working here as a maid. They married in 1995 – after her contract had ended – but neither knew they had broken the law.
In 2001, the violation was discovered and Madam Kurusamy was forced to leave Singapore.
3 Malaysian Loh Kwai Yit, 39, was a work permit holder here before she married nightclub manager Melvin Lee Seng Kim, 59.
In January 2000, they got married in Malaysia. Mr Lee then tried to get a long-term social visit pass for his wife.
Instead, he found that she could not enter Singapore at all, as she had broken one of the conditions of her previous work permit by marrying him.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Firms studying feasibility of floating dorms & storage structures
By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia |
Posted: 19 October 2008 2011 hrs
SINGAPORE: With rising construction costs and a space crunch in Singapore, local researchers are exploring cheaper alternatives to land reclamation.
One option is what's called very large floating structures that can literally support cities on water. One company is even exploring the idea of floating dormitories for foreign workers.
The concept of using floating structures is not new. In Singapore, there is already the Marina Bay Floating Platform.
Professor Wang Chien Ming, director of engineering science programme at the National University of Singapore, said: "People have been talking about ultra large floating platforms being situated near the equatorial belt where there's no typhoons, no hurricanes.
"The floating structures could be placed in a very calm sea environment and then you can tap on the energy from the sun... it (a floating city) can be self contained."
Most floating structures will come with a mooring system, a breakwater and an access bridge or a berth. And even though the structures could be made of steel and concrete, they can still float on water. It is all in the "law of Physics," said Prof Wang.
He lists out the advantages of using floating structures. They include a relatively short construction period of 4 to 5 months; such expandable structures are immune to the effects of rising sea levels since the mega floats rise in tandem with the water; and compared to land reclamation, mega floating structures could cost about a third less.
Some people say the sea is prime real estate. Now, imagine dormitories housing 4,000 to 5,000 people out in the open sea. Of course, these have to be sustainable - hooked up to a power source and water supply.
That could work for Singapore, said one company that develops and manages foreign worker dormitories.
Mini Environment Service Pte Ltd's director of business development, A Mohamed Ali, said: "Theoretically speaking, there is no limit to how many people you can hold. You can have a country built on a sea. Theoretically, of course!
"And because it's modular, you can literally add on (facilities)... We're looking at facilities like malls, post offices, remittance centres, anything that will serve the foreign worker community."
He does not see housing foreign workers off-shore as being segregation between such workers and Singaporeans. "If the design and the facilities are good, it won't be stigmatised that way and the motivation is not really to ship anyone out; it is to find an alternative. There is a need to find an alternative."
If the idea takes off, the dormitory would be the first of its kind in the world to house such a huge community on water.
Another company that is exploring the use of mega floating structures is JTC Corporation. It is thinking of using such structures to store petrochemical and oil products.
NUS' Prof Wang said the cost of building such a structure could be about S$200 million.
SINGAPORE: With rising construction costs and a space crunch in Singapore, local researchers are exploring cheaper alternatives to land reclamation.
One option is what's called very large floating structures that can literally support cities on water. One company is even exploring the idea of floating dormitories for foreign workers.
The concept of using floating structures is not new. In Singapore, there is already the Marina Bay Floating Platform.
Professor Wang Chien Ming, director of engineering science programme at the National University of Singapore, said: "People have been talking about ultra large floating platforms being situated near the equatorial belt where there's no typhoons, no hurricanes.
"The floating structures could be placed in a very calm sea environment and then you can tap on the energy from the sun... it (a floating city) can be self contained."
Most floating structures will come with a mooring system, a breakwater and an access bridge or a berth. And even though the structures could be made of steel and concrete, they can still float on water. It is all in the "law of Physics," said Prof Wang.
He lists out the advantages of using floating structures. They include a relatively short construction period of 4 to 5 months; such expandable structures are immune to the effects of rising sea levels since the mega floats rise in tandem with the water; and compared to land reclamation, mega floating structures could cost about a third less.
Some people say the sea is prime real estate. Now, imagine dormitories housing 4,000 to 5,000 people out in the open sea. Of course, these have to be sustainable - hooked up to a power source and water supply.
That could work for Singapore, said one company that develops and manages foreign worker dormitories.
Mini Environment Service Pte Ltd's director of business development, A Mohamed Ali, said: "Theoretically speaking, there is no limit to how many people you can hold. You can have a country built on a sea. Theoretically, of course!
"And because it's modular, you can literally add on (facilities)... We're looking at facilities like malls, post offices, remittance centres, anything that will serve the foreign worker community."
He does not see housing foreign workers off-shore as being segregation between such workers and Singaporeans. "If the design and the facilities are good, it won't be stigmatised that way and the motivation is not really to ship anyone out; it is to find an alternative. There is a need to find an alternative."
If the idea takes off, the dormitory would be the first of its kind in the world to house such a huge community on water.
Another company that is exploring the use of mega floating structures is JTC Corporation. It is thinking of using such structures to store petrochemical and oil products.
NUS' Prof Wang said the cost of building such a structure could be about S$200 million.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Measures to Restrict Foreign Workers Access to Private Housing Estate
The following article was published in TODAY on 17 Oct 08.
Dorm access road to stay ... ; But other measures to be adopted to placate residents
By Lin Yanqin
TODAY
17 October 2008
SCHEDULING the transport of foreign workers to and from their dormitory to create the least noise possible and making sure these workers’ access to private housing estates is limited.
These are some of the measures residents living near the temporary foreign workers’ dorm at Serangoon Gardens hope to see taken in future, after their suggestion to relocate the proposed access road running along the Hwan Gardens estate to Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 was turned down.
Announcing the decision to go ahead with the 400m access road, the Ministry of National Development (MND) also listed the suggestions made by the residents that were accepted. These included using trees and plants to screen the road from private homes, locating the pick-up and drop-off points for foreign workers within the dorm premises, and banning mass activities after 10.30pm.
Mr John Leow, chairman of the Hwan Gardens Neighbourhood Committee, said that the measures accepted by MND would address some of the residents’ concerns. As for concerns that the buses turning into Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 would add to the already-busy traffic, Mr Leow said he and other grassroots leaders would continue to work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to see how the impact could be minimised.
But a 62-year-old resident who gave her name as Mrs Ong, said she was “sceptical that plants would solve the noise problem, and I don’t want buses rumbling up and down 24 hours a day past my house as well as belching smoke”.
Resident Mark Giblett, 43, said: “My main concern would be how we can schedule the buses so that they will not cause a great disturbance in the middle of the night.”
But he acknowledged it would be a challenge, as the MND had stated the workers “work on shifts, we need to allow the workers to be picked up at timings that correspond to their shift patterns”.
Residents had been upset by the Government’s decision — announced early this month — to locate the foreign workers’ dorm at the old Serangoon Gardens Technical School premises, citing fears of crime, littering and noise. They were also concerned that the value of property in the area would fall.
Many residents also felt the move to build the dorm in the neighbourhood would worsen already-busy traffic conditions in the area. Hwan Gardens residents, in particular, were outraged by the proposed $2-million access road that would run past their estate.
In a statement released yesterday, the MND said the LTA had concluded after a “detailed study” that it would not be feasible to build a ramp on the Central Expressway (CTE) at the closest point to the site — as suggested by residents in a dialogue session chaired by Aljunied GRC MP Lim Hwee Hua about two weeks ago.
There was not enough distance to fit in a proper acceleration and deceleration lane to allow a direct entry and exit from the CTE to the dormitory site, the LTA said.
“Furthermore, if the road is realigned as suggested, pedestrians and cyclists from the dormitory will be forced to walk or ride along the CTE when they leave or return to the dormitory. This will put their personal safety at risk,” said the MND.
The Ministry said it would continue to work closely with grassroots leaders of Serangoon Gardens on their concerns about the dormitory.
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
Dorm access road to stay ... ; But other measures to be adopted to placate residents
By Lin Yanqin
TODAY
17 October 2008
SCHEDULING the transport of foreign workers to and from their dormitory to create the least noise possible and making sure these workers’ access to private housing estates is limited.
These are some of the measures residents living near the temporary foreign workers’ dorm at Serangoon Gardens hope to see taken in future, after their suggestion to relocate the proposed access road running along the Hwan Gardens estate to Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 was turned down.
Announcing the decision to go ahead with the 400m access road, the Ministry of National Development (MND) also listed the suggestions made by the residents that were accepted. These included using trees and plants to screen the road from private homes, locating the pick-up and drop-off points for foreign workers within the dorm premises, and banning mass activities after 10.30pm.
Mr John Leow, chairman of the Hwan Gardens Neighbourhood Committee, said that the measures accepted by MND would address some of the residents’ concerns. As for concerns that the buses turning into Ang Mo Kio Ave 1 would add to the already-busy traffic, Mr Leow said he and other grassroots leaders would continue to work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to see how the impact could be minimised.
But a 62-year-old resident who gave her name as Mrs Ong, said she was “sceptical that plants would solve the noise problem, and I don’t want buses rumbling up and down 24 hours a day past my house as well as belching smoke”.
Resident Mark Giblett, 43, said: “My main concern would be how we can schedule the buses so that they will not cause a great disturbance in the middle of the night.”
But he acknowledged it would be a challenge, as the MND had stated the workers “work on shifts, we need to allow the workers to be picked up at timings that correspond to their shift patterns”.
Residents had been upset by the Government’s decision — announced early this month — to locate the foreign workers’ dorm at the old Serangoon Gardens Technical School premises, citing fears of crime, littering and noise. They were also concerned that the value of property in the area would fall.
Many residents also felt the move to build the dorm in the neighbourhood would worsen already-busy traffic conditions in the area. Hwan Gardens residents, in particular, were outraged by the proposed $2-million access road that would run past their estate.
In a statement released yesterday, the MND said the LTA had concluded after a “detailed study” that it would not be feasible to build a ramp on the Central Expressway (CTE) at the closest point to the site — as suggested by residents in a dialogue session chaired by Aljunied GRC MP Lim Hwee Hua about two weeks ago.
There was not enough distance to fit in a proper acceleration and deceleration lane to allow a direct entry and exit from the CTE to the dormitory site, the LTA said.
“Furthermore, if the road is realigned as suggested, pedestrians and cyclists from the dormitory will be forced to walk or ride along the CTE when they leave or return to the dormitory. This will put their personal safety at risk,” said the MND.
The Ministry said it would continue to work closely with grassroots leaders of Serangoon Gardens on their concerns about the dormitory.
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
Wake-up call from dorm issue
The following article was published in The Straits Times on 17 October 2008.
Wake-up call from dorm issue
By TAN HUI YEE
The Straits Times
17/10/2008
The recent ruckus over housing foreign workers in a private estate offers lessons on handling such sensitive issues
THEY came, they protested and they walked away defeated.
Serangoon Gardens residents who signed a petition against a dormitory for foreign workers in their neighbourhood were told two weeks ago that the plan would go ahead after all, albeit with mitigating measures such as having the facility house 600 instead of 1,000 workers and a new $2 million road to ease traffic congestion in the area.
Anxious to placate angry residents, the area's Member of Parliament, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, spent three hours visiting them to address their fears that the low-skilled foreigners will soil their parks, clog up their streets as well as violate their children and womenfolk.
The debate over whether such fears are founded seems moot now that the dormitory is a done deal. But the entire two-month-long episode bears important lessons on how such issues could be better handled.
In all likelihood, the fate of the former Serangoon Gardens Technical school was probably sealed as soon as the residents went public with their protest. Under the glare of media attention, it would have been almost impossible for the Government to shelve plans for the dormitory, however tentative the proposal had been before.
Doing so would have sent the message to residents elsewhere that future such dormitories could be shunted far from their homes if they made enough noise. That would have been a tall order, given that about 80,000 to 100,000 of the roughly 580,000 foreign workers here are living in illegal or less than ideal accommodation. And the number of those living in such conditions is set to increase if nothing is done to ease the housing crunch.
The Serangoon Gardens affair is just a microcosm of the larger debate on the extent to which Singaporeans are prepared to accommodate and co-exist with the foreigners imported to do the work they shun.
Due to a leak of information – the former Serangoon Gardens Technical School was only one of several state properties considered for temporary worker housing – residents there became the first community in recent times forced to confront their own attitudes towards foreign workers living in their midst.
The issue was even more controversial than usual because it challenged previous assumptions that only people living in distant Housing Board estates like Jurong or rundown shophouses in Little India would have to deal with living next door to foreign workers.
Serangoon Gardens was neither. It was a gentrified landed housing area with popular eateries and its very own country club. "Why here?" the Gardenites cried. "Why can't we house foreign workers in the 'usual' places?"
In the Forum pages, and on online forums, enraged residents went as far as to call for the ministers preaching tolerance to lead by example and accept dormitories in the exclusive district of Bukit Timah, where many ministers live.
Overnight, the lines were drawn in the sand: Some Gardenites called for the dormitory to be moved to the HDB heartlands, while public housing residents recoiled at the idea of their neighbourhoods being considered somehow less worthy of regard.
And those Singaporeans expressing disgust at the xenophobia on display were promptly labelled as hypocrites by the embattled Gardenites.
The uproar brought to the surface tensions that have lain latent for years and were formerly couched in platitudes.
On the flip side, the bare-knuckled debate was invaluable for the honesty that it reflected. It forced Singaporeans to examine their own attitudes and reflect on the kind of adjustments they have to make in an increasingly globalised world.
It compelled parties both for and against the dormitory to speak out, and fence-sitters to weigh in on the issue.
The dust seems to have settled – for now – but is almost expected to be stirred up again when the Ministry of National Development announces the rest of "fewer than 10" sites picked for foreign worker housing.
The question, going forward, is whether the Government should stick to its current policy of keeping mum about its choice of such dormitory sites until they are selected.
Some may argue that the Serangoon Gardens uproar justifies its current practice, though one wonders if there are grounds for more openness about the process.
Although such transparency could slow down policymaking, it would also give laymen greater insight into the nation's constraints.
Singaporeans, as a matter of conditioning, have grown too used to being told about a decision after it has been cast in stone. We react to such decisions from a purely personal perspective because we are not consulted on the larger national issues beforehand.
Would the Serangoon Gardens debate have been more measured if the Government had been more upfront about its considerations? Would residents, being more educated on the nation's options, have been more open to living next door to foreign workers?
A lot of good can come out of this bruising affair, if we allow it.
Wake-up call from dorm issue
By TAN HUI YEE
The Straits Times
17/10/2008
The recent ruckus over housing foreign workers in a private estate offers lessons on handling such sensitive issues
THEY came, they protested and they walked away defeated.
Serangoon Gardens residents who signed a petition against a dormitory for foreign workers in their neighbourhood were told two weeks ago that the plan would go ahead after all, albeit with mitigating measures such as having the facility house 600 instead of 1,000 workers and a new $2 million road to ease traffic congestion in the area.
Anxious to placate angry residents, the area's Member of Parliament, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, spent three hours visiting them to address their fears that the low-skilled foreigners will soil their parks, clog up their streets as well as violate their children and womenfolk.
The debate over whether such fears are founded seems moot now that the dormitory is a done deal. But the entire two-month-long episode bears important lessons on how such issues could be better handled.
In all likelihood, the fate of the former Serangoon Gardens Technical school was probably sealed as soon as the residents went public with their protest. Under the glare of media attention, it would have been almost impossible for the Government to shelve plans for the dormitory, however tentative the proposal had been before.
Doing so would have sent the message to residents elsewhere that future such dormitories could be shunted far from their homes if they made enough noise. That would have been a tall order, given that about 80,000 to 100,000 of the roughly 580,000 foreign workers here are living in illegal or less than ideal accommodation. And the number of those living in such conditions is set to increase if nothing is done to ease the housing crunch.
The Serangoon Gardens affair is just a microcosm of the larger debate on the extent to which Singaporeans are prepared to accommodate and co-exist with the foreigners imported to do the work they shun.
Due to a leak of information – the former Serangoon Gardens Technical School was only one of several state properties considered for temporary worker housing – residents there became the first community in recent times forced to confront their own attitudes towards foreign workers living in their midst.
The issue was even more controversial than usual because it challenged previous assumptions that only people living in distant Housing Board estates like Jurong or rundown shophouses in Little India would have to deal with living next door to foreign workers.
Serangoon Gardens was neither. It was a gentrified landed housing area with popular eateries and its very own country club. "Why here?" the Gardenites cried. "Why can't we house foreign workers in the 'usual' places?"
In the Forum pages, and on online forums, enraged residents went as far as to call for the ministers preaching tolerance to lead by example and accept dormitories in the exclusive district of Bukit Timah, where many ministers live.
Overnight, the lines were drawn in the sand: Some Gardenites called for the dormitory to be moved to the HDB heartlands, while public housing residents recoiled at the idea of their neighbourhoods being considered somehow less worthy of regard.
And those Singaporeans expressing disgust at the xenophobia on display were promptly labelled as hypocrites by the embattled Gardenites.
The uproar brought to the surface tensions that have lain latent for years and were formerly couched in platitudes.
On the flip side, the bare-knuckled debate was invaluable for the honesty that it reflected. It forced Singaporeans to examine their own attitudes and reflect on the kind of adjustments they have to make in an increasingly globalised world.
It compelled parties both for and against the dormitory to speak out, and fence-sitters to weigh in on the issue.
The dust seems to have settled – for now – but is almost expected to be stirred up again when the Ministry of National Development announces the rest of "fewer than 10" sites picked for foreign worker housing.
The question, going forward, is whether the Government should stick to its current policy of keeping mum about its choice of such dormitory sites until they are selected.
Some may argue that the Serangoon Gardens uproar justifies its current practice, though one wonders if there are grounds for more openness about the process.
Although such transparency could slow down policymaking, it would also give laymen greater insight into the nation's constraints.
Singaporeans, as a matter of conditioning, have grown too used to being told about a decision after it has been cast in stone. We react to such decisions from a purely personal perspective because we are not consulted on the larger national issues beforehand.
Would the Serangoon Gardens debate have been more measured if the Government had been more upfront about its considerations? Would residents, being more educated on the nation's options, have been more open to living next door to foreign workers?
A lot of good can come out of this bruising affair, if we allow it.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
'Living Together in Perfect Harmony'
The following article appeared in TODAY on 16 Oct 08.
LIVING TOGETHER IN PERFECT HARMONY?
By Yolanda Chin
TODAY
16 October 2008
THE recent saga over the housing of foreign workers in land-scarce Singapore has forced citizens to take stock of what it means to live in multicultural harmony.
Singaporeans generally appreciate the economic contribution of this transient workforce — a cheap but critical source of odd-job labour, of the kind that most Singaporeans themselves shun.
With 577,000 foreign workers, mainly in construction and manufacturing, and 180,000 foreign domestic maids here currently, there can be no doubt that Singaporeans have to learn to live with these guest workers.
As such, the question is not whether to tighten control over the number entering Singapore but how best to manage their presence in a densely-populated city-state. In this respect, the discussion has polarised Singaporeans into two camps: Those calling for integration and those for segregation.
Although giving the workers access to common spaces in Singapore is possibly more morally defensible, the option of keeping interaction minimal is more likely to prevail.
Integration arguments, segregation reality
Aside from the obvious — that segregation is anathema to Singapore’s multicultural policy — the case for Singaporeans to be more accommodating to foreign workers has been anchored by economic logic.
Singaporeans are repeatedly reminded of the latter group’s critical contribution to the good life here. They perform the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs and at very low wages, thus keeping Singapore’s economy flexible and competitive, attracting business investments that in turn checks unemployment.
Humanitarian appeals have also highlighted the invaluable contributions of foreign workers, despite their remaining marginalised and vulnerable to exploitation. In this respect, as beneficiaries of their labour and sacrifice, Singaporeans have an ethical obligation to share their common spaces with them.
Many others also point to the irony that Singapore’s meteoric rise from a sleepy fishing village to a thriving port city was built on the backs of our immigrant forefathers, a significant number of whom came as penniless labourers with hopes of a better life.
They eventually sank roots in Singapore soil and their descendents now form the core of the Singapore heartbeat. Hence, Singaporeans intolerant of foreign workers’ presence have obviously forgotten their migrant roots, the argument goes.
While the integration rhetoric makes for stirring speeches and inspiring national narratives, it is unlikely to win over many from the segregation camp because it does not address a deeper issue: The good life enjoyed by Singaporeans is premised to a large degree on the unequal treatment of foreign workers.
An obstacle to the genuine integration of foreign workers lies in Singapore’s utilitarian immigration policy that evaluates a foreigner’s worth based on his usefulness for business. Foreign workers satisfy this criterion by accepting low wages and skeletal rights to keep costs competitive. They are thus allowed to enter the country to work.
However, this means they do not enter on an equal footing because the very provisions that qualify them are the same ones that undermine their odds for sustaining a level of affluence that will allow them to interact with the majority of Singaporeans as equals. As a result, policy dictates that their presence be regarded as temporary in anticipation of the challenges to full integration in Singapore society.
So, it is arguably a tall order to expect the relationship between Singaporeans and the foreign worker community to be anything deeper than that between a consumer and service provider. To alter this relationship would undermine the very basis on which they are allowed into Singapore. From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, it does not make sense for both parties to invest in forging any enduring and meaningful relationships.
Shared values and economic policy
In sum, the integrationists cannot depend on humanitarian rhetoric alone to win over those who advocate segregation. The problem does not lie in a lack of compassion among Singaporeans, whose consistently generous donations to charity bear testament to this.
The deeper issue that needs to be addressed is the grim reality that the affluence Singaporeans enjoy today is to no small degree indebted to the unequal treatment of transient workers. Acknowledging this not only requires Singaporeans to take a long, hard look at their shared values, the logical course of action that follows may entail Singaporeans to compromise the material comforts they are accustomed to.
Put differently, Singaporeans have been handsomely rewarded for closing a blind eye to the inequality in their country’s foreign labour policy.
If advocates of integration are serious about advancing their cause, they will have to wean the nation’s economy away from this reliance on cheap labour in a manner that will not undermine the good life regarded by many as their birthright.
The writer is an associate research fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. She researches social fabric issues.
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
LIVING TOGETHER IN PERFECT HARMONY?
By Yolanda Chin
TODAY
16 October 2008
THE recent saga over the housing of foreign workers in land-scarce Singapore has forced citizens to take stock of what it means to live in multicultural harmony.
Singaporeans generally appreciate the economic contribution of this transient workforce — a cheap but critical source of odd-job labour, of the kind that most Singaporeans themselves shun.
With 577,000 foreign workers, mainly in construction and manufacturing, and 180,000 foreign domestic maids here currently, there can be no doubt that Singaporeans have to learn to live with these guest workers.
As such, the question is not whether to tighten control over the number entering Singapore but how best to manage their presence in a densely-populated city-state. In this respect, the discussion has polarised Singaporeans into two camps: Those calling for integration and those for segregation.
Although giving the workers access to common spaces in Singapore is possibly more morally defensible, the option of keeping interaction minimal is more likely to prevail.
Integration arguments, segregation reality
Aside from the obvious — that segregation is anathema to Singapore’s multicultural policy — the case for Singaporeans to be more accommodating to foreign workers has been anchored by economic logic.
Singaporeans are repeatedly reminded of the latter group’s critical contribution to the good life here. They perform the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs and at very low wages, thus keeping Singapore’s economy flexible and competitive, attracting business investments that in turn checks unemployment.
Humanitarian appeals have also highlighted the invaluable contributions of foreign workers, despite their remaining marginalised and vulnerable to exploitation. In this respect, as beneficiaries of their labour and sacrifice, Singaporeans have an ethical obligation to share their common spaces with them.
Many others also point to the irony that Singapore’s meteoric rise from a sleepy fishing village to a thriving port city was built on the backs of our immigrant forefathers, a significant number of whom came as penniless labourers with hopes of a better life.
They eventually sank roots in Singapore soil and their descendents now form the core of the Singapore heartbeat. Hence, Singaporeans intolerant of foreign workers’ presence have obviously forgotten their migrant roots, the argument goes.
While the integration rhetoric makes for stirring speeches and inspiring national narratives, it is unlikely to win over many from the segregation camp because it does not address a deeper issue: The good life enjoyed by Singaporeans is premised to a large degree on the unequal treatment of foreign workers.
An obstacle to the genuine integration of foreign workers lies in Singapore’s utilitarian immigration policy that evaluates a foreigner’s worth based on his usefulness for business. Foreign workers satisfy this criterion by accepting low wages and skeletal rights to keep costs competitive. They are thus allowed to enter the country to work.
However, this means they do not enter on an equal footing because the very provisions that qualify them are the same ones that undermine their odds for sustaining a level of affluence that will allow them to interact with the majority of Singaporeans as equals. As a result, policy dictates that their presence be regarded as temporary in anticipation of the challenges to full integration in Singapore society.
So, it is arguably a tall order to expect the relationship between Singaporeans and the foreign worker community to be anything deeper than that between a consumer and service provider. To alter this relationship would undermine the very basis on which they are allowed into Singapore. From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, it does not make sense for both parties to invest in forging any enduring and meaningful relationships.
Shared values and economic policy
In sum, the integrationists cannot depend on humanitarian rhetoric alone to win over those who advocate segregation. The problem does not lie in a lack of compassion among Singaporeans, whose consistently generous donations to charity bear testament to this.
The deeper issue that needs to be addressed is the grim reality that the affluence Singaporeans enjoy today is to no small degree indebted to the unequal treatment of transient workers. Acknowledging this not only requires Singaporeans to take a long, hard look at their shared values, the logical course of action that follows may entail Singaporeans to compromise the material comforts they are accustomed to.
Put differently, Singaporeans have been handsomely rewarded for closing a blind eye to the inequality in their country’s foreign labour policy.
If advocates of integration are serious about advancing their cause, they will have to wean the nation’s economy away from this reliance on cheap labour in a manner that will not undermine the good life regarded by many as their birthright.
The writer is an associate research fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. She researches social fabric issues.
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Workers are human, too
The following commentary was published in the Straits Times on 14 Oct 2008.
Workers are human, too
By Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
14 October 2008
Straits Times
Integrate, not segregate: That should be the way as their numbers grow
WORKERS were summoned and human beings came. That was how Swiss author Max Frisch summed up the situation in post-war Germany.
In the midst of a reconstruction boom, 1950s Germany recruited tens of thousands of manual labourers from the poor countries of Europe and the Mediterranean coast.
The Germans called them gastarbeiter, or guest workers, for guests were expected to leave after a while.
Today, booming city states like Singapore are doing the same.
There are now 577,000 foreign workers here, excluding maids.
They, too, are guest workers, here for the short term to oil the engine of economic growth.
A third of them, or about 180,000, do construction work.
Others staff factory lines. Yet others are cleaners.
As a nation, we are painfully aware of our economic dependence on these workers. But we also seem to have reduced them to mere factors of production.
We seem to have lost sight of the reality that these are human beings and like us, they have human needs.
The recent furore over the conversion of an old and vacant school building in Serangoon Gardens into a dormitory for foreign workers makes that patently clear.
The Government announced last week that it would go ahead with the dormitory but to appease residents, it would seal off the entrance that opens out into Serangoon Gardens to both vehicles and pedestrians.
The 600 workers to be housed in the dormitory will only be able to enter and exit via a new, built-to-order 400m slip road that will lead into the Central Expressway and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1.
So even though these workers will live temporarily within one of Singapore's more mature and pleasant housing estates, they will have no direct access to its shops, parks or eating places.
They will be fenced in and kept apart from the estate's other residents.
A request was also made to Member of Parliament Lim Hwee Hua for shuttle buses to ferry the foreigners - not to Serangoon Gardens of course - but to areas like Bishan and Ang Mo Kio Central on weekends.
We as a society need to ask ourselves if that is an acceptable way to treat fellow human beings.
Why do we feel we have a right to deny foreign workers the good things we ourselves enjoy, including a chance to walk about freely and mingle with others?
Imagine if you or your son or daughter were to go to another country to work and be at the receiving end of such treatment. How would you feel?
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan stressed last month that segregation cannot be the way forward, not at the rate the foreign worker population is growing.
Their numbers swelled by 102,000 last year alone, double the jump of 55,000 a year ago. And with major construction works lined up, a let-up is unlikely.
Singaporeans, Mr Mah said, must 'be prepared to see them and share with them our common spaces'.
But actions speak louder than words.
And in the case of Serangoon Gardens, the Government's response to residents' complaints has been to provide precisely what Mr Mah spoke out against - segregation.
One issue that merits closer examination is the extent to which Singaporeans take the cue from the Government, which has one policy for foreign workers and another, contrasting one for foreign talent.
While there is an economic rationale for such a two-tier approach to regulating the entry and exit of different types of foreigners, such policies also shape people's attitudes.
There is little doubt that as a result, some locals feel distinctly inferior to foreign talent, while others seem to believe they have licence to treat those here on work permits as a lower class of beings.
Any right thinking individual knows that there is no basis for such feelings of superiority.
Most Singaporeans only have to look a generation or two back to realise that the only thing that separates them from foreign workers is the good fortune of having been born in a wealthy and developed city state.
To be sure, Singapore is not unique in its handling of migrant workers.
Compared to some countries in the Middle East, the treatment that foreign workers receive here may seem civilised.
In Dubai, for example, where more than 80 per cent of the work force is foreign, labourers from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan who toil to build skyscrapers and luxury hotels live out of sight in temporary labour camps in the desert.
But is that the direction we want our society to head in? I think we can and should do better.
Some residents of Jalan Kayu and their MP Wee Siew Kim have demonstrated a more humane way forward.
After 6,000 foreign workers moved into the neighbourhood, grassroots leaders and police officers roped in 38 workers to help them patrol the area.
They organised a walk-a-jog around the foreign worker dormitory, so residents and workers could get to know each other better.
Our society needs more such community events, so Singaporeans can see for themselves that most foreign workers are just ordinary, hard-working folk like them.
The Government also needs to step up to the plate. It should review regulations that lend credence to the belief that foreign workers matter less.
The Land Transport Authority's refusal to ban the transport of foreign workers in lorries' cargo decks, for example, signals that these workers' lives are, to quote MP Halimah Yaacob, 'worth less than equipment'.
Let us remember that treating others with dignity is a mark of a civilised society.
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Workers are human, too
By Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent
14 October 2008
Straits Times
Integrate, not segregate: That should be the way as their numbers grow
WORKERS were summoned and human beings came. That was how Swiss author Max Frisch summed up the situation in post-war Germany.
In the midst of a reconstruction boom, 1950s Germany recruited tens of thousands of manual labourers from the poor countries of Europe and the Mediterranean coast.
The Germans called them gastarbeiter, or guest workers, for guests were expected to leave after a while.
Today, booming city states like Singapore are doing the same.
There are now 577,000 foreign workers here, excluding maids.
They, too, are guest workers, here for the short term to oil the engine of economic growth.
A third of them, or about 180,000, do construction work.
Others staff factory lines. Yet others are cleaners.
As a nation, we are painfully aware of our economic dependence on these workers. But we also seem to have reduced them to mere factors of production.
We seem to have lost sight of the reality that these are human beings and like us, they have human needs.
The recent furore over the conversion of an old and vacant school building in Serangoon Gardens into a dormitory for foreign workers makes that patently clear.
The Government announced last week that it would go ahead with the dormitory but to appease residents, it would seal off the entrance that opens out into Serangoon Gardens to both vehicles and pedestrians.
The 600 workers to be housed in the dormitory will only be able to enter and exit via a new, built-to-order 400m slip road that will lead into the Central Expressway and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1.
So even though these workers will live temporarily within one of Singapore's more mature and pleasant housing estates, they will have no direct access to its shops, parks or eating places.
They will be fenced in and kept apart from the estate's other residents.
A request was also made to Member of Parliament Lim Hwee Hua for shuttle buses to ferry the foreigners - not to Serangoon Gardens of course - but to areas like Bishan and Ang Mo Kio Central on weekends.
We as a society need to ask ourselves if that is an acceptable way to treat fellow human beings.
Why do we feel we have a right to deny foreign workers the good things we ourselves enjoy, including a chance to walk about freely and mingle with others?
Imagine if you or your son or daughter were to go to another country to work and be at the receiving end of such treatment. How would you feel?
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan stressed last month that segregation cannot be the way forward, not at the rate the foreign worker population is growing.
Their numbers swelled by 102,000 last year alone, double the jump of 55,000 a year ago. And with major construction works lined up, a let-up is unlikely.
Singaporeans, Mr Mah said, must 'be prepared to see them and share with them our common spaces'.
But actions speak louder than words.
And in the case of Serangoon Gardens, the Government's response to residents' complaints has been to provide precisely what Mr Mah spoke out against - segregation.
One issue that merits closer examination is the extent to which Singaporeans take the cue from the Government, which has one policy for foreign workers and another, contrasting one for foreign talent.
While there is an economic rationale for such a two-tier approach to regulating the entry and exit of different types of foreigners, such policies also shape people's attitudes.
There is little doubt that as a result, some locals feel distinctly inferior to foreign talent, while others seem to believe they have licence to treat those here on work permits as a lower class of beings.
Any right thinking individual knows that there is no basis for such feelings of superiority.
Most Singaporeans only have to look a generation or two back to realise that the only thing that separates them from foreign workers is the good fortune of having been born in a wealthy and developed city state.
To be sure, Singapore is not unique in its handling of migrant workers.
Compared to some countries in the Middle East, the treatment that foreign workers receive here may seem civilised.
In Dubai, for example, where more than 80 per cent of the work force is foreign, labourers from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan who toil to build skyscrapers and luxury hotels live out of sight in temporary labour camps in the desert.
But is that the direction we want our society to head in? I think we can and should do better.
Some residents of Jalan Kayu and their MP Wee Siew Kim have demonstrated a more humane way forward.
After 6,000 foreign workers moved into the neighbourhood, grassroots leaders and police officers roped in 38 workers to help them patrol the area.
They organised a walk-a-jog around the foreign worker dormitory, so residents and workers could get to know each other better.
Our society needs more such community events, so Singaporeans can see for themselves that most foreign workers are just ordinary, hard-working folk like them.
The Government also needs to step up to the plate. It should review regulations that lend credence to the belief that foreign workers matter less.
The Land Transport Authority's refusal to ban the transport of foreign workers in lorries' cargo decks, for example, signals that these workers' lives are, to quote MP Halimah Yaacob, 'worth less than equipment'.
Let us remember that treating others with dignity is a mark of a civilised society.
(c) 2008 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
Monday, October 13, 2008
Singapore's foreign construction workers struggle to build relationships
The following article appeared in the Bangkok Post, 12 Oct 2008.
Singapore's foreign construction workers struggle to build relationships
By Erika Fry
12 October 2008
Bangkok Post
ACROSS THE ROAD from one of Singapore's forest brothels is an ugly block of a building surrounded by a chain link fence and security.
It is known by those who live there as the "5 Star".
Its tenants, who number in the thousands, and live 10 or 12 to a room, resigned themselves to the conditions long enough ago that they can be ironic about it. Their residence, among foreign workers, is known to be notoriously bad. They come from countries like India and the Philippines on the promise of making a better living than they could in their native lands.
They are there on one-year contracts, and come on the condition that they leave their families and loved ones at home and not have relations with local Singaporean women.
Dr Pattana Kitiarsa , an anthropologist with the National University of Singapore who has studied issues of intimacy and the Thai worker community in Singapore extensively, says "how Singapore manages sexuality among its 620,000 foreign workers is largely left a puzzle to many".
According to Singaporean labour laws, foreign workers are not allowed to bring their families to Singapore, nor are they allowed to marry or "indulge in any illegal, immoral or undesirable activities, including breaking up families in Singapore".
Meanwhile, foreign workers who fail to pass regular medical checks for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and female workers who become pregnant while in Singapore, immediately have their immigration status revoked and are forever banished from the island state. Legal sex workers, STD-positive or not, are also banished after working for two years in the country.
The sex lives of these foreign construction workers revolves around forest brothels, the legal (a handful of brothels) and illegal (hundreds of foreign women street walking on month-long social visit visas) sex workers in Singapore's Geylang red light districts and more traditional relationships which form between construction and domestic workers.
Thai construction workers in Singapore estimate 50 per cent of their community use sex workers in Geylang, while 10 per cent make use of the forest brothels.
Patch, a construction worker who lives in the 5 Star, says for Thai workers, the forest brothels are considered low-class.
Nonetheless, a visit to the forest brothel usually requires a special occasion. At S$10 or S$20 for a session with a woman - on the ground and by all accounts "unromantic" - is still expensive.
When such an occasion - a pay day, birthday, an extraordinary spell of loneliness - arises, the workers will make their way to the brothel site, where they'll usually have a drinking session first and party with their fellow workers.
Aside from this pattern, Pattana says those who visit prostitutes are often married men. Single workers are less inclined to take part in commercial sex and more often find girlfriends, usually from Indonesia or the Philippines, who work in Singapore as maids.
Domestic workers in Singapore have fewer free hours than construction workers, and they often meet when a construction worker goes scouting the supermarkets for women buying household groceries or they arrange to meet through phone networks.
The phone is also central to these relationships. Pattana says most exchanges between couples are through SMS messages in their common language, English.
Pattana teaches English to workers on Sundays at the Golden Mile complex and says many of his students are there for this reason. They often ask him to proof-read or craft text messages.
Pattana says many of these relationships are costly for the workers. The men are expected to buy phone cards for their girlfriends, who make less than they do working as domestic workers, he said.
After the SMS-courting period, the couple often meet in person.
Pattana says foreign workers tend to be pragmatic about such relationships and understand they have a limited lifespan. They often last several months, he says, adding that whether the workers are married or single, the relationship is about finding a friend or someone to connect to.
"It's one way that helps them make sense of this highly regulated migrant life," says Pattana. Regardless of the sort of liaison, the workers are careful to protect themselves - they have medical tests to pass.
Singapore's foreign construction workers struggle to build relationships
By Erika Fry
12 October 2008
Bangkok Post
ACROSS THE ROAD from one of Singapore's forest brothels is an ugly block of a building surrounded by a chain link fence and security.
It is known by those who live there as the "5 Star".
Its tenants, who number in the thousands, and live 10 or 12 to a room, resigned themselves to the conditions long enough ago that they can be ironic about it. Their residence, among foreign workers, is known to be notoriously bad. They come from countries like India and the Philippines on the promise of making a better living than they could in their native lands.
They are there on one-year contracts, and come on the condition that they leave their families and loved ones at home and not have relations with local Singaporean women.
Dr Pattana Kitiarsa , an anthropologist with the National University of Singapore who has studied issues of intimacy and the Thai worker community in Singapore extensively, says "how Singapore manages sexuality among its 620,000 foreign workers is largely left a puzzle to many".
According to Singaporean labour laws, foreign workers are not allowed to bring their families to Singapore, nor are they allowed to marry or "indulge in any illegal, immoral or undesirable activities, including breaking up families in Singapore".
Meanwhile, foreign workers who fail to pass regular medical checks for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and female workers who become pregnant while in Singapore, immediately have their immigration status revoked and are forever banished from the island state. Legal sex workers, STD-positive or not, are also banished after working for two years in the country.
The sex lives of these foreign construction workers revolves around forest brothels, the legal (a handful of brothels) and illegal (hundreds of foreign women street walking on month-long social visit visas) sex workers in Singapore's Geylang red light districts and more traditional relationships which form between construction and domestic workers.
Thai construction workers in Singapore estimate 50 per cent of their community use sex workers in Geylang, while 10 per cent make use of the forest brothels.
Patch, a construction worker who lives in the 5 Star, says for Thai workers, the forest brothels are considered low-class.
Nonetheless, a visit to the forest brothel usually requires a special occasion. At S$10 or S$20 for a session with a woman - on the ground and by all accounts "unromantic" - is still expensive.
When such an occasion - a pay day, birthday, an extraordinary spell of loneliness - arises, the workers will make their way to the brothel site, where they'll usually have a drinking session first and party with their fellow workers.
Aside from this pattern, Pattana says those who visit prostitutes are often married men. Single workers are less inclined to take part in commercial sex and more often find girlfriends, usually from Indonesia or the Philippines, who work in Singapore as maids.
Domestic workers in Singapore have fewer free hours than construction workers, and they often meet when a construction worker goes scouting the supermarkets for women buying household groceries or they arrange to meet through phone networks.
The phone is also central to these relationships. Pattana says most exchanges between couples are through SMS messages in their common language, English.
Pattana teaches English to workers on Sundays at the Golden Mile complex and says many of his students are there for this reason. They often ask him to proof-read or craft text messages.
Pattana says many of these relationships are costly for the workers. The men are expected to buy phone cards for their girlfriends, who make less than they do working as domestic workers, he said.
After the SMS-courting period, the couple often meet in person.
Pattana says foreign workers tend to be pragmatic about such relationships and understand they have a limited lifespan. They often last several months, he says, adding that whether the workers are married or single, the relationship is about finding a friend or someone to connect to.
"It's one way that helps them make sense of this highly regulated migrant life," says Pattana. Regardless of the sort of liaison, the workers are careful to protect themselves - they have medical tests to pass.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
'Please give us work' '...and remember to pay us'
The following article was first published in the Straits Times and then on AsiaOne News.
'Please give us work' '...and remember to pay us'
By Radha Basu, additional reporting by Melissa Sim
The Straits Times , Tue, Oct 07, 2008
They allege that some labour agents and small firms here are bringing in far more workers than they need in order to profit from the fees the men are charged to secure jobs here. These amounts range from $8,000 to $10,000 per worker.
The High Commission said it has received more than 1,000 complaints since January, nearly half that number in the past three to four months.
'With unemployment rates high back home, our workers are desperate to get out. They will do anything to come here,' said a High Commission spokesman.
'What puzzles us is how the Government here can give out more work permits than are required. There are obviously loopholes in the system that companies here are exploiting.'
She added that the High Commission knew of about 25 firms involved in the complaints by workers.
These are mostly small outfits supplying workers to shipyards and many of the firms are owned by the same group of people.
Migrant workers' charities such as the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) said they have also dealt with more than 160 such cases in recent months.
Mr Ranjit Saha, founder of Bangladeshi self-help group Bangla Universal Society, believes that groups of unscrupulous agents and companies have been taking advantage of the workers.
Both the High Commission and the non-governmental organisations said they inform the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) when they get complaints.
Home, for instance, wrote to the ministry last month, saying that 118 workers from 11 companies had approached the group for help with the problem.
MOM is investigating the complaints and a spokesman said that the ministry took a serious view of employers who did not pay their foreign employees the salaries owed to them.
'If they fail to do so, the ministry will take action against the companies, including prosecuting them in court,' the ministry said in an e-mail reply.
TWC2 president John Gee said an increase in agent's fees in the past few years could have led to the recent rise in cases of cheated workers.
Back recently from a meeting on migrant labour in Manila, he said similar 'scams' to cheat Bangladeshi workers have also been reported in some countries in the Gulf region.
Mr A. K. M. Mohsin, 44, who edits a bi-monthly Bengali magazine here, said a new rule introduced last year may have also contributed to the problem.
It allows manpower firms to bring in five shipyard workers for every Singaporean or permanent resident hired.
'It's possible that no one is really checking whether there is work for these extra workers being brought in as long as the employers pay the levies,' said Mr Mohsin.
The levy - ranging from $150 to $295 per month - is paid by employers of foreign shipyard workers to MOM.
Mr Mohsin said that over the past two months alone, he had met more than 500 workers, from around 20 companies, who were left in the lurch despite being employed.
In April, Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong told Parliament that it was illegal to accept kickbacks to hire foreign workers and those found guilty could be fined up to $5,000 or given six months' jail, or both, and be barred from hiring foreign workers.
But the Bangladesh High Commission spokesman said that such cases were hard to prove.
Bangladeshi Tocher Mallick, 23, said he sold his family's farm and borrowed money to come to Singapore after someone told him that he could earn here in just one month what it took him two years to earn as a farm hand.
The agent's fee was $8,000, but he was told that he would earn that in just a couple of years and could remain in Singapore for 14 years.
'Who could refuse the offer?' he said.
But his dreams died young.
Six months on, this eldest child of an unemployed farm worker says he has not earned a single cent yet. His work permit has been cancelled and he is fighting to remain here so that he can get another job and repay his debts.
He and 27 other co-workers from Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement lodged a complaint with MOM on Sept 15. The ministry is investigating.
Workers from four other companies The Straits Times spoke to share similar grievances.
Shipyard worker Mohd Mohidul Islam, 30, went to MOM last week together with 17 co-workers to complain about a lack of regular work.
'When there was no work in the shipyard, they tried to make us work at a construction site at night, for no pay,' said the former typist.
Mr Abdul Malek, 30, from San's Marine - another firm with complaints from more than 40 workers saying they were not paid - said he was made to sit at the company's Tuas office from 9am to 5pm waiting for work.
'The only work I got was as a bathroom cleaner,' he said.
Representatives from these companies have denied any wrongdoing.
A Mr Nathan of San's Marine claimed that his workers were fully paid and those who 'left the company' did so because they refused to get trained to improve their skills.
Mr Balla Tan, who said he was a 'consultant' for Ho Ah Lam, said his workers too were fully paid and half had been given special training to 'upgrade their skills'.
'It is time for renewal of their contracts and they know I cannot renew their contract or don't want to renew, so they ran away to MOM.'
The workers, on their part, deny this. 'We have papers to show when we came here,' said Mr Mallick.
'But the big issue for us is whether we can get jobs to recover our money.'
'Please give us work' '...and remember to pay us'
By Radha Basu, additional reporting by Melissa Sim
The Straits Times , Tue, Oct 07, 2008
They allege that some labour agents and small firms here are bringing in far more workers than they need in order to profit from the fees the men are charged to secure jobs here. These amounts range from $8,000 to $10,000 per worker.
The High Commission said it has received more than 1,000 complaints since January, nearly half that number in the past three to four months.
'With unemployment rates high back home, our workers are desperate to get out. They will do anything to come here,' said a High Commission spokesman.
'What puzzles us is how the Government here can give out more work permits than are required. There are obviously loopholes in the system that companies here are exploiting.'
She added that the High Commission knew of about 25 firms involved in the complaints by workers.
These are mostly small outfits supplying workers to shipyards and many of the firms are owned by the same group of people.
Migrant workers' charities such as the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) said they have also dealt with more than 160 such cases in recent months.
Mr Ranjit Saha, founder of Bangladeshi self-help group Bangla Universal Society, believes that groups of unscrupulous agents and companies have been taking advantage of the workers.
Both the High Commission and the non-governmental organisations said they inform the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) when they get complaints.
Home, for instance, wrote to the ministry last month, saying that 118 workers from 11 companies had approached the group for help with the problem.
MOM is investigating the complaints and a spokesman said that the ministry took a serious view of employers who did not pay their foreign employees the salaries owed to them.
'If they fail to do so, the ministry will take action against the companies, including prosecuting them in court,' the ministry said in an e-mail reply.
TWC2 president John Gee said an increase in agent's fees in the past few years could have led to the recent rise in cases of cheated workers.
Back recently from a meeting on migrant labour in Manila, he said similar 'scams' to cheat Bangladeshi workers have also been reported in some countries in the Gulf region.
Mr A. K. M. Mohsin, 44, who edits a bi-monthly Bengali magazine here, said a new rule introduced last year may have also contributed to the problem.
It allows manpower firms to bring in five shipyard workers for every Singaporean or permanent resident hired.
'It's possible that no one is really checking whether there is work for these extra workers being brought in as long as the employers pay the levies,' said Mr Mohsin.
The levy - ranging from $150 to $295 per month - is paid by employers of foreign shipyard workers to MOM.
Mr Mohsin said that over the past two months alone, he had met more than 500 workers, from around 20 companies, who were left in the lurch despite being employed.
In April, Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong told Parliament that it was illegal to accept kickbacks to hire foreign workers and those found guilty could be fined up to $5,000 or given six months' jail, or both, and be barred from hiring foreign workers.
But the Bangladesh High Commission spokesman said that such cases were hard to prove.
Bangladeshi Tocher Mallick, 23, said he sold his family's farm and borrowed money to come to Singapore after someone told him that he could earn here in just one month what it took him two years to earn as a farm hand.
The agent's fee was $8,000, but he was told that he would earn that in just a couple of years and could remain in Singapore for 14 years.
'Who could refuse the offer?' he said.
But his dreams died young.
Six months on, this eldest child of an unemployed farm worker says he has not earned a single cent yet. His work permit has been cancelled and he is fighting to remain here so that he can get another job and repay his debts.
He and 27 other co-workers from Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement lodged a complaint with MOM on Sept 15. The ministry is investigating.
Workers from four other companies The Straits Times spoke to share similar grievances.
Shipyard worker Mohd Mohidul Islam, 30, went to MOM last week together with 17 co-workers to complain about a lack of regular work.
'When there was no work in the shipyard, they tried to make us work at a construction site at night, for no pay,' said the former typist.
Mr Abdul Malek, 30, from San's Marine - another firm with complaints from more than 40 workers saying they were not paid - said he was made to sit at the company's Tuas office from 9am to 5pm waiting for work.
'The only work I got was as a bathroom cleaner,' he said.
Representatives from these companies have denied any wrongdoing.
A Mr Nathan of San's Marine claimed that his workers were fully paid and those who 'left the company' did so because they refused to get trained to improve their skills.
Mr Balla Tan, who said he was a 'consultant' for Ho Ah Lam, said his workers too were fully paid and half had been given special training to 'upgrade their skills'.
'It is time for renewal of their contracts and they know I cannot renew their contract or don't want to renew, so they ran away to MOM.'
The workers, on their part, deny this. 'We have papers to show when we came here,' said Mr Mallick.
'But the big issue for us is whether we can get jobs to recover our money.'
Saturday, October 4, 2008
180 China workers up in arms over pay
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 4 Oct 2008.
180 China workers up in arms over pay
By GOH CHIN LIAN
The Straits Times
04/10/2008
They accuse employer of trying to force them to accept lower salary
ABOUT 180 workers from China are up in arms over a pay dispute with a South Korean company that they claim has gone back on its word over their salary.
They accuse construction company Ssangyong Engineering and Construction of trying to force them to accept a lower salary because it has found a new subcontractor whose workers are cheaper.
Ssangyong itself has painted a different picture of the dispute.
Its senior manager, Mr S. H. An, accuses the workers of being "very lazy".
He told The Straits Times the company had discussed the problem with the workers and offered them some options.
"If they don't want, we cannot do anything. If they continue to resist, (there will be) some penalty. We must deduct some salary," he said yesterday.
According to a China worker, who wanted to be known only as Mr Shen, Ssangyong's officials gave his colleagues three options at a meeting on Thursday.
They are: work for Shanghai Construction, the new subcontractor, for $1,200 a month; be flown home with $1,000 in compensation; or find another job within two weeks.
The company would also deduct 15 per cent of their earnings, because they had not fulfilled the minimum 180 work days required under the contract, Mr Shen added.
The terms were unacceptable to his colleagues, who had been promised a salary of $1,700 a month, he said.
They have lodged complaints against Ssangyong with the Manpower Ministry.
Their complaints included unpaid salaries and salary deductions, the ministry said in a statement yesterday. It said it is investigating the complaints.
Mr Shen said his co-workers want Ssangyong to reimburse them the $3,000 they each paid an agent to bring them here. They also oppose the company deducting the 15 per cent.
He said in Mandarin: "It's not that we want to go home. It's them who want us to. We refused to join the other company because the $1,200 salary is too low."
He said most of the 180 workers had worked here for a few years, but with other employers.
Only about 40 are newcomers who arrived here between two and four months ago. The rest have worked here for at least two years; some of them have been here for five to eight years.
Mr Shen, 38, has worked here for six years and said it was the first time he had been caught up in a pay dispute.
He added: "Every company has good and bad workers. You can't say because a few are bad, that all are bad."
People familiar with the construction industry said contractors had taken such measures against workers found to be unproductive or without relevant skills.
Sometimes, employers also do it when they have a falling out with the labour agent, they added.
However, it is rare, they said, for a company to take such action against so many workers at one time, especially when it is rushing to complete a project.
Ssangyong is building the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort's hotel. The 2,600-room hotel is due to be completed next year.
When contacted, Shanghai Construction declined to comment.
180 China workers up in arms over pay
By GOH CHIN LIAN
The Straits Times
04/10/2008
They accuse employer of trying to force them to accept lower salary
ABOUT 180 workers from China are up in arms over a pay dispute with a South Korean company that they claim has gone back on its word over their salary.
They accuse construction company Ssangyong Engineering and Construction of trying to force them to accept a lower salary because it has found a new subcontractor whose workers are cheaper.
Ssangyong itself has painted a different picture of the dispute.
Its senior manager, Mr S. H. An, accuses the workers of being "very lazy".
He told The Straits Times the company had discussed the problem with the workers and offered them some options.
"If they don't want, we cannot do anything. If they continue to resist, (there will be) some penalty. We must deduct some salary," he said yesterday.
According to a China worker, who wanted to be known only as Mr Shen, Ssangyong's officials gave his colleagues three options at a meeting on Thursday.
They are: work for Shanghai Construction, the new subcontractor, for $1,200 a month; be flown home with $1,000 in compensation; or find another job within two weeks.
The company would also deduct 15 per cent of their earnings, because they had not fulfilled the minimum 180 work days required under the contract, Mr Shen added.
The terms were unacceptable to his colleagues, who had been promised a salary of $1,700 a month, he said.
They have lodged complaints against Ssangyong with the Manpower Ministry.
Their complaints included unpaid salaries and salary deductions, the ministry said in a statement yesterday. It said it is investigating the complaints.
Mr Shen said his co-workers want Ssangyong to reimburse them the $3,000 they each paid an agent to bring them here. They also oppose the company deducting the 15 per cent.
He said in Mandarin: "It's not that we want to go home. It's them who want us to. We refused to join the other company because the $1,200 salary is too low."
He said most of the 180 workers had worked here for a few years, but with other employers.
Only about 40 are newcomers who arrived here between two and four months ago. The rest have worked here for at least two years; some of them have been here for five to eight years.
Mr Shen, 38, has worked here for six years and said it was the first time he had been caught up in a pay dispute.
He added: "Every company has good and bad workers. You can't say because a few are bad, that all are bad."
People familiar with the construction industry said contractors had taken such measures against workers found to be unproductive or without relevant skills.
Sometimes, employers also do it when they have a falling out with the labour agent, they added.
However, it is rare, they said, for a company to take such action against so many workers at one time, especially when it is rushing to complete a project.
Ssangyong is building the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort's hotel. The 2,600-room hotel is due to be completed next year.
When contacted, Shanghai Construction declined to comment.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Drydocks unit confident despite mishaps
The following article was published in The Business times on 1 Oct 2008.
Drydocks unit confident despite mishaps
By VINCENT WEE
The Business Times 01/10/2008
It plans to tap on parent's systems, processes, and set up training school
[SINGAPORE] Despite some drawbacks, Drydocks World-SE Asia remains confident that it will emerge more competitive once better work processes are in place.
Speaking to media in the wake of several recent accidents at its Tuas yard, chief executive Denis Welch said that while the sheer scale of the group has created more complexity, leveraging on size becomes available.
Drydocks World last year paid US$2.2 billion for Pan-United Marine and Labroy Marine to gain ships and Asian shipbuilding sites as it expands outside the Middle East.
"There is an opportunity to share best practices so that we can learn from each other in terms of our skill base," Mr Welch said.
This includes being able to learn from the parent company's operations in Dubai, which won a Shipyard of the Year award last year and has a good production and safety record.
"We need to tap into the systems and processes that have been developed there because, to release the synergistic opportunities, we have to have the same operating systems and measures to compare ourselves against."
But putting together a range of shipbuilding, offshore rig construction and ship-repair operations, including a shipping operation and four existing shipyards located in Singapore and on Batam, is a huge task, especially when Labroy and Pan-United used to be competitors.
There is a need to standardise all the activities within the group, from sales and marketing to production processes, Mr Welch emphasised.
In response to the recent accidents, Mr Welch said: "We put safety at the heart of the business and we don't confuse safe working with profitable working, they're the same thing."
"The disappointing thing for us is that despite our efforts, we've experienced a number of accidents at the Tuas shipyard; we're working very closely with the Ministry of Manpower to ensure that we understand the root causes of these accidents," he said, adding that a stop-work order has not affected the group much.
Mr Welch has commissioned an independent audit by Dupont Safety Resources, which is undertaking a comprehensive review of safety planning and operations at Drydocks World's Tuas yard.
The group has also just completed a survey of its workforce and the feedback will be fed into a review of operations and planning when work restarts. "I'm absolutely determined that this is going to be a company-wide approach, which is understood and embraced by the whole workforce," said Mr Welch.
Other measures include setting up a $5 million training school in Batam, which will be operational by year-end, and reducing reliance on sub-contractors. The target is to make around 80 per cent of its workforce its own employees.
Future plans for Drydocks World-SE Asia's business include continuing to invest in the fleet of support vessels for the offshore industry that it has taken over from Labroy. And while Mr Welch is concerned about the ongoing credit crisis, he said that the group has so far not felt any fallout from it yet.
Drydocks unit confident despite mishaps
By VINCENT WEE
The Business Times 01/10/2008
It plans to tap on parent's systems, processes, and set up training school
[SINGAPORE] Despite some drawbacks, Drydocks World-SE Asia remains confident that it will emerge more competitive once better work processes are in place.
Speaking to media in the wake of several recent accidents at its Tuas yard, chief executive Denis Welch said that while the sheer scale of the group has created more complexity, leveraging on size becomes available.
Drydocks World last year paid US$2.2 billion for Pan-United Marine and Labroy Marine to gain ships and Asian shipbuilding sites as it expands outside the Middle East.
"There is an opportunity to share best practices so that we can learn from each other in terms of our skill base," Mr Welch said.
This includes being able to learn from the parent company's operations in Dubai, which won a Shipyard of the Year award last year and has a good production and safety record.
"We need to tap into the systems and processes that have been developed there because, to release the synergistic opportunities, we have to have the same operating systems and measures to compare ourselves against."
But putting together a range of shipbuilding, offshore rig construction and ship-repair operations, including a shipping operation and four existing shipyards located in Singapore and on Batam, is a huge task, especially when Labroy and Pan-United used to be competitors.
There is a need to standardise all the activities within the group, from sales and marketing to production processes, Mr Welch emphasised.
In response to the recent accidents, Mr Welch said: "We put safety at the heart of the business and we don't confuse safe working with profitable working, they're the same thing."
"The disappointing thing for us is that despite our efforts, we've experienced a number of accidents at the Tuas shipyard; we're working very closely with the Ministry of Manpower to ensure that we understand the root causes of these accidents," he said, adding that a stop-work order has not affected the group much.
Mr Welch has commissioned an independent audit by Dupont Safety Resources, which is undertaking a comprehensive review of safety planning and operations at Drydocks World's Tuas yard.
The group has also just completed a survey of its workforce and the feedback will be fed into a review of operations and planning when work restarts. "I'm absolutely determined that this is going to be a company-wide approach, which is understood and embraced by the whole workforce," said Mr Welch.
Other measures include setting up a $5 million training school in Batam, which will be operational by year-end, and reducing reliance on sub-contractors. The target is to make around 80 per cent of its workforce its own employees.
Future plans for Drydocks World-SE Asia's business include continuing to invest in the fleet of support vessels for the offshore industry that it has taken over from Labroy. And while Mr Welch is concerned about the ongoing credit crisis, he said that the group has so far not felt any fallout from it yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)