HOME’s Forced Labour Report Based on ILO Framework

The following letter was sent to The Straits Times on 18 January 2019.

We agree with the Ministry of Manpower that forced labour is a complex issue (‘Report Suggests Maids at Risk of Forced Labour’, ST, 16 Jan 2019).HOME’s report on forced labour relies on the International Labour Organization’s framework, which outlines key indicators as well as a definition of forced labour that recognizes the twin dimensions of menace of penalty and involuntariness. The ILO is an international standards-setting body which Singapore is a member of. Forced labour indicators—excessive overtime, violence, threats, restrictions of movement, withholding of wages, confiscated identity documents, among others—function as important signifiers of a potential forced labour situation. It is inaccurate to imply that HOME’s methodology depends solely on the presence of one or more forced labour indicators: HOME has been scrupulous in its assessment, which involves a consideration of indicators and a parallel process of ensuring that the presenting situation is aligned with the key concept and parameters of forced labour as defined by the ILO. The report has also been reviewed by legal experts in the field.

While the broad definition of trafficking in Singapore’s Prevention of Human Trafficking Act is aligned with the UN’s Palermo Protocol, several key definitions within the PHTA do not comply with the UNODC Model Law Against Trafficking in Persons. Core principles such as the non-punishment of potential victims of trafficking are not set out in law. There is also no clear appeal process within our national trafficking referral mechanism.

Domestic workers’ exclusion from the Employment Act (EA) mean they are bereft of clear, legal mininmum standards to protect core labour rights: these include limits on working hours, specific notice periods, and minimum entitlements to annual leave, sick leave and hospitalization leave. While they are covered by the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, EFMA does not offer equal protection to that of the EA. Additionally, the language of EFMA is ambiguous (e.g. “adequate rest”, “reasonable notice of repatriation”), leaving key employment terms dependent on negotiations between domestic workers and employers, a relationship that is gravely imbalanced. This ambiguity also means that when disputes arise, mediation outcomes become heavily dependent on the discretionary power of individual officers. 

We are heartened by the interest generated by this report and look forward to working together with policymakers and other stakeholders to improve the situation of migrant domestic workers in Singapore.