HOME's Comments on the Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill
3 December 2014
The Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill has been lauded for ensuring a higher quality of living in large foreign workers’ dormitories (i.e. with 1,000 residents and above.) While it is commendable and necessary to improve conditions, the Bill in its current state falls short of ensuring adequate standards for all migrant workers in Singapore.
Missed opportunity to address inadequate housing for migrant workers
The Bill was a good opportunity to set the standards for adequate accommodation across all the different housing types – factory converted dormitories, shophouses and worksite temporary housing . However, it only applies to dormitories with 1000 residents and above.
Currently, standards vary across different housing types. For instance, those living in buildings under construction, and temporarily built sheds at construction sites , do not have proper bedroom, a proper place to store belongings, a kitchen, recreational and shower facilities, Buildings under construction are often dusty, noisy and pest infested, Dengue outbreaks have been reported in these areas due to inadequate sanitation. The regulations for such housing is minimal and far lower than that of purpose built dormitories and temporary housing structures.
A comprehensive law for all foreign workers’ dormitories would ensure consistent standards in terms of structure of the housing, proper bedding, adequate ventilation, sanitation, number of persons per room, security of belongings, sufficient privacy, laundry and cooking facilities, waste management and access to health care. The Bill fails to address this.
Bill should adhere to minimum international housing standards
A Straits Times report, Dorm Operators form association to raise standards, revealed that there are approximately 150,000 bed spaces in purpose built dormitories. With approximately 770,000 foreign workers in Singapore (MOM Statistics), this means 570,000 are living in sub-standard housing in factory converted quarters, shop houses, private apartments, and construction sites where employers openly flout housing regulations. URA regulations stipulate that walk up apartments and shop houses should not accommodate more than 8 persons in one unit but employers often accommodate, 10 to 15 workers in a small room to save costs. Many of these places are also often poorly managed.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has stipulated standards which we urge Parliament to include as the minimum benchmark for the proposed Bill. We extract the relevant provisions from their recommendations here:
Infrastructure
1) A separate bed for each worker;
2) Adequate headroom, providing full and free movement, of not less than 203 centimetres;
3) The minimum inside dimensions of a sleeping space should be at least 198 centimetres by 80 centimetres;
4) Beds should not be arranged in tiers of more than two;
5) Bedding materials should be reasonably comfortable (we note that many workers sleep on hard wooden planks without a mattress);
6) Bedding and bedframe materials should be designed to deter vermin;
7) Adequate natural light during the daytime and adequate artificial light;
8) Adequate ventilation to ensure sufficient movement of air in all conditions of weather and climate; k) heating where appropriate;
9) Adequate supply of safe potable water;
10) Adequate sanitary facilities (see below); n) adequate drainage;
11) Adequate furniture for each worker to secure his or her belongings, such as a ventilated clothes locker which can be locked by the occupant to ensure privacy;
12) Common dining rooms, canteens or mess rooms, located away from the sleeping areas;
13) Appropriately situated and furnished laundry facilities;
14) rest and recreation rooms and health facilities.
Adequate space
In workers’ sleeping rooms the floor area should not be less than 7.5 square metres in rooms accommodating two persons; 11.5 square metres in rooms accommodating three persons; or 14.5 square metres in rooms accommodating four persons.
If a room accommodates more than four persons, the floor area should be at least 3.6 square metres per person. Rooms should indicate the permitted number of occupants. As far as practicable, sleeping rooms should be arranged so that shifts are separated and that no workers working during the day share a room with workers on night shifts. At the moment, our case work has shown that workers in dormitories may share a room with up to 20 persons.
Sanitation facilities
Adequate sanitary facilities should include a minimum of one toilet, one wash basin and one tub or shower for every six persons. Current regulations stipulated by NEA indicate one for every 15 persons for those living in dormitories. This is severely disproportionate to the number of workers currently living in the dormitories. Sanitary facilities provided should meet minimum standards of health and hygiene. They should also provide reasonable standards of comfort, including hot and cold fresh running water. Sanitary facilities should have ventilation to the open air, independently of any other part of the accommodation. Soap and hygienic paper should be adequately stocked.
Excessive powers of dormitory inspectors
We should also be concerned about the excessive powers given to dormitory inspectors in the proposed Bill. It mentions that if the dormitory officer or inspector believes that any offence under the Bill has been committed, he or she may break open any door or window of the premises for inspections. He or she also has the powers to arrest and detain someone for up to 48 hours. Why does the Act give such broad powers to inspectors when existing legislation such as the Criminal Procedures Code (CPC), and the Police Force Act already exist? According to Section 25 and Section 7 of the Bill, not having a licence to run a dormitory is an arrestable and detainable offence. What kinds of offences under this proposed Act could be so serious that it is necessary for such actions? More clarity is needed.
Dormitories as de-facto internment camp
We are concerned that the Bill has designated these dormitories as public spaces subject to regulations that include restricting the entry to and exit of the dormitories’ residents where the Commissioner overseeing these dormitories “has reasonable grounds to believe” that the residents will be affected by public health outbreaks or public disorder. This provision captured in Section 13 Clause 4d reinforces the stereotype that foreign workers are more inclined to riotous behavior. Designating their living quarters as public spaces also infringes on their personal space.
Dormitories are the homes of foreign workers. Their personal space and movement should be respected. Reinforcing negative perceptions of migrant workers does nothing to improve relations between them and the Singapore public. The Manpower Minister, Tan Chuan Jin himself has said “there is no place for racists and xenophobes in our society” Are politicians in Singapore following their own advice?