This must needs be brief.
After eight or nine days of hearings of the Committee of Inquiry into the foreign worker riot of Dec. 8 focused on policing issues—questions why bolder actions of confrontation were not taken, shots fired, appropriateness of batons &etc.—yesterday attention turned to possible underlying grievances that might have been behind the mayhem involving 400 mainly young Indian construction workers.
"No latent frustration or tension among foreign workers, COI told," the sub-heading in the newspaper report this morning. The Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) Exec. Dir. made this clear. This chap drew attention to a 2011 survey by his organization and the Manpower Ministry involving more than 3,000 workers, which found 94% satisfied with work conditions.
A second workers' representative confirmed the same: the Deputy Exec. Sec. of the Building Construction & Timber Industries Employees' Union (Batu). The woman concerned arrived at the conclusion from an interview following the riot involving forty workers from four work sites.
Furthermore, two foreign workers came before the Committee to testify personally: an excavator operator of 15 years experience here gave "100 marks" to Singapore as a place of good opportunity for foreign workers such as himself. A second man, a construction worker, told the COI he was satisfied with his three-storey dormitory where fifteen men share a "spacious" room, "even if 50 of them have to jostle for a bath at any one time."
Exploitative wages? Somewhat unsatisfactory, offered the construction worker. $24 basic daily salary ought be $30, the man suggested. No need resort to violence however.
"No, sir."
The two workers' representatives confessed most foreign workers were not unionized here. And there were rogue operators.
"A stir" was caused during the hearing when the Committee was told of Employers retaining worker passports. Moreover, "a collective gasp was heard in the courtroom" when the Workers' Representative told of employers who set onerous conditions on the passport retention, setting $5,000 deposits before releasing the travel document.
Despite it being mandatory for employers to issue physical payslips to workers, "this practice is not yet widespread," the Workers' Representative testified, adding the lack of a payslip and other employment documentation puts the workers at a disadvantage when it comes to wage disputes.
After eight or nine days of hearings of the Committee of Inquiry into the foreign worker riot of Dec. 8 focused on policing issues—questions why bolder actions of confrontation were not taken, shots fired, appropriateness of batons &etc.—yesterday attention turned to possible underlying grievances that might have been behind the mayhem involving 400 mainly young Indian construction workers.
"No latent frustration or tension among foreign workers, COI told," the sub-heading in the newspaper report this morning. The Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) Exec. Dir. made this clear. This chap drew attention to a 2011 survey by his organization and the Manpower Ministry involving more than 3,000 workers, which found 94% satisfied with work conditions.
A second workers' representative confirmed the same: the Deputy Exec. Sec. of the Building Construction & Timber Industries Employees' Union (Batu). The woman concerned arrived at the conclusion from an interview following the riot involving forty workers from four work sites.
Furthermore, two foreign workers came before the Committee to testify personally: an excavator operator of 15 years experience here gave "100 marks" to Singapore as a place of good opportunity for foreign workers such as himself. A second man, a construction worker, told the COI he was satisfied with his three-storey dormitory where fifteen men share a "spacious" room, "even if 50 of them have to jostle for a bath at any one time."
Exploitative wages? Somewhat unsatisfactory, offered the construction worker. $24 basic daily salary ought be $30, the man suggested. No need resort to violence however.
"No, sir."
The two workers' representatives confessed most foreign workers were not unionized here. And there were rogue operators.
"A stir" was caused during the hearing when the Committee was told of Employers retaining worker passports. Moreover, "a collective gasp was heard in the courtroom" when the Workers' Representative told of employers who set onerous conditions on the passport retention, setting $5,000 deposits before releasing the travel document.
Despite it being mandatory for employers to issue physical payslips to workers, "this practice is not yet widespread," the Workers' Representative testified, adding the lack of a payslip and other employment documentation puts the workers at a disadvantage when it comes to wage disputes.
No comments:
Post a Comment