Ro's story: a tale of deception and exploitation

Last week, on World Day Against Trafficking in Persons (TIP), we published an explainer on TIP and its significance in the international, regional and domestic contexts. Today, we spotlight Ro*’s case. HOME identified Ro as a potential TIP victim due to the high levels of deception and exploitation. Read her story, as narrated to us.  

Ro arrived in Singapore expecting to be trained as a hairstylist: this was what she was told by an acquaintance from her home country, whose relatives owned a hair salon in Singapore. She came with dreams of learning the trade, doing well, and opening her own salon one day. 

However, Ro was in for a shock. She stayed with a couple, whose names did not match with the purported employer stated on her In-Principle Approval (IPA) document (an official document needed for migrant workers to enter Singapore). Ro had also never met the employer whose name was stated in the IPA. While she worked at a hair salon owned by the couple, she was also tasked with completing chores not only at the couple’s household, but also six other households. 

Needless to say, Ro was severely overworked and desperately wished to return home.  However, Ro understood her salary deduction period to be six months—during which she would not receive any salary. This was to pay off her recruitment fees of S$8,500, owed to the couple she was staying with. Since Ro did not sign an employment contract, she had no idea of the monthly salary she was supposed to receive.

About a month into her employment, Ro told the couple she wished to return home after the six-month loan deduction period. Much to her distress, she was told that she would have to work for two years to pay off her debt, and that she would only start to receive a salary after two years. 

Instead, she only received tips from the occupants of the houses that she cleaned, and from customers at the salon. 

Ro was also socially isolated by the couple. She was not allowed to talk to anyone, including customers at the hair salon, or the homeowners of the houses she cleaned. After she had made the request to return home, the couple deleted and blocked her contacts on her phone and instructed her not to contact anyone. Her passport was also taken away from her. 

She faced constant verbal abuse, and was issued threats such as “if you don’t listen to what I say or do what I tell you to do, we will wear you down”. They also told her that she would have to “work until she dies” in order to repay the debts she owed, and that even if her mother died in the interim period, she would not be allowed to return home. Intimidated, Ro continued to comply with the couple’s instructions. 

Eventually, Ro found an opportunity to leave the couple’s home and arrived at HOME’s shelter. HOME identified her as a possible victim of TIP given the following factors: 

  • She was deceived about the nature of the job, her employer, and the scope of her work; 

  • She was deceived about the legality of her work arrangement;

  • She worked excessive hours;

  • She was isolated and verbally abused; 

  • Her identity documents (passport) were confiscated;

  • She was not paid for any of her work; 

  • Her financial vulnerability was exploited to force her to continue working.

HOME assisted Ro in filing a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower. She was given the opportunity to find employment while investigations were ongoing. However, when the case concluded, Ro was upset to learn that she was issued a warning letter for working without a valid work permit. HOME appealed to MOM to reverse the decision to issue the warning letter, but the appeal was unsuccessful.


HOME