Mahmud's* Story: Belongings Being Withheld

13 August 2021

In June 2021, Mahmud,* a construction worker, came to HOME for help after his bosses beat and kicked him because he refused to sign vouchers for salary not paid to him. He had been assaulted at the workers’ quarters provided by his employer. Mahmud called the police and was hospitalized. Fearing for his safety, Mahmud did not return to the employer's accommodation from the hospital.

A week later, Mahmud asked his employer if he could retrieve his belongings, to which his employer agreed. But when Mahmud turned up, they reneged on the agreement. Over the next three days, after repeatedly pleading and arranging collection times with his employer, Mahmud attempted to retrieve his belongings twice more (once accompanied by a HOME volunteer and staff, who called the police). Each time, the boss denied Mahmud his belongings when he showed up at the agreed time.

When Mahmud sought the police’s help, the investigation officer (IO) said that they were unable to enforce a "verbal agreement" from the employer to return his belongings.

Mahmud then lodged a Magistrate's complaint of the assault. The Magistrate told Mahmud that the police would also help him retrieve his things. But when Mahmud went back to them, they insisted he go to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Only after HOME explained that MOM would only handle the unpaid salary did the IO agree to help, by putting Mahmud on a conference call with the employer.

The employer insisted that Mahmud had to list all his items, and their exact number. This demand was unreasonable as Mahmud could not remember every item, and it was unnecessary since the accommodation was shared with many workers, so Mahmud would still need to identify his belongings on-site. Yet the police repeated that they could only "advise" the employer to return his items.  

HOME then sought help from police higher-ups. They repeated that they could not exercise enforcement powers to ensure Mahmud’s belongings were returned, and cited the lack of a "written order” from the Magistrate. They advised speaking to the boss again.

HOME attempted a compromise with the employer’s demands. Mahmud agreed to list a categorization of his belongings, and individually itemize his valuables. He sent this list to his boss immediately after the call. 

Two months since Mahmud was assaulted, and more than a week since he gave his employer the list they demanded, his things have not been returned. His boss claims that he needs to ‘check’ on the items, or that Covid-19 measures prevent Mahmud from collecting his things.

HOME sees many cases like Mahmud's, where employers withhold or even discard belongings as ‘revenge’ for claims lodged against them.

Many migrant workers live in employer-provided accommodation. Like Mahmud, workers who lodge claims often flee because they are vulnerable to escalating hostility or even physical abuse. Migrant domestic workers (MDWs), required by law to live in their employers' homes, are similarly vulnerable. Facing abuse or intolerable living or working conditions, they may flee their employers' homes hastily, hoping to retrieve their belongings later. 

These workers’ belongings under their employers’ control are susceptible to being discarded or withheld indefinitely. HOME has also seen cut-up clothing and destroyed items returned to the MDW, as the employers are angry that their MDW has run away. 

Complaints to the authorities are usually met with the response that the police are unable to intervene.

Employers already have much power over low-wage migrant workers. Allowing employers to retaliate with impunity further deters migrant workers from seeking help. For Mahmud, the employer’s behaviour not only deprived him of clothes, it also hindered him from moving on with new employment, as his skill certificates were also withheld.

Gaps in the law or enforcement that allow employers to withhold or discard workers' belongings with impunity should be closed. In particular, clarifications can be made on whether such conduct may constitute dishonest misappropriation under section 403 of the Penal Code, by way of illustrations or explanations that can be provided within the provision. 

*Name has been changed to protect identity