Trafficking In Persons: Government Needs to Do More
16 July 2012
1. In its latest annual Trafficking in Persons Report, published on 19 June 2012 (the TIP Report), the US Department of State has once again ranked Singapore as Tier 2. This means that the Singapore government does not fully comply with the standards set out in the US Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) but is making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with these standards. The minimum standards set out in the TVPA require that the Singapore government should prohibit and punish, and make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate, severe forms of trafficking.
2. HOME considers Singapore’s Tier 2 ranking to be an appropriate assessment of the current situation. This ranking recognises the efforts which the government, and particularly the Inter-agency Taskforce on Trafficking in Persons (the Taskforce), has made in the last 12 months. Such efforts most notably include the launch in March 2012 of the National Plan of Action against Trafficking in Persons 2012-2015 (the NPA) following a consultation process with civil society organisations, academics and other key stakeholders. The ranking also reflects the lack of adequate legislation in Singapore to address all forms and dimensions of trafficking, despite the presence of strong indicators of trafficking impacting on many migrant workers, including those working in the sex industry, the construction sector, on fishing boats and in domestic servitude. In order to meet the TVPA standards, national legislation should prohibit trafficking and provide mechanisms for investigation, prosecution, victim protection and prevention of trafficking. It should also provide for building partnerships with other governments in the fight against trafficking and on-going monitoring of all efforts taken to combat trafficking in Singapore.
3. HOME continues to support the Taskforce in its efforts to combat trafficking and has repeatedly encouraged the government to take positive steps towards meeting international standards for the prevention of human trafficking. Through its submission to the public consultation on the NPA in February 2012, and also through its participation in the Joint Civil Society Statement in response to the NPA in April 2012, HOME has urged the government to:
Accede to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children and other relevant international law instruments, such as the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and ILO Conventions No. 111 and No. 189;
Enact and enforce specific anti-trafficking in persons legislation which addresses each of the four priority areas of prevention, prosecution, protection and partnership;
Adopt a victim-centred approach which prioritises the development of a comprehensive victim assistance programme; and
Engage fully with those countries of origin from which trafficked persons arrive in Singapore in order to ensure a coordinated response, preferably through the entry into bilateral agreements, to the challenges presented by human traffickers.
4. HOME notes the response of the Taskforce to the TIP Report which was issued on 13 July 2012. In this response, the Taskforce sought to clarify what it considered to be “inaccuracies and misrepresentations” in the TIP Report. Based on its own experiences of working with trafficked persons in Singapore, HOME submits that this response does not, in return, present an accurate assessment of the current situation in Singapore, and makes the following comments:
5. Repatriation of Workers: In response to the TIP Report finding that employers’ ability to repatriate workers at any time during their contracts has fuelled workers’ fears of being “deported”, the Taskforce stated that in the event of employment termination, employers are required to give notice of termination in line with the provisions in the employment contract or, if such provisions are not present, in line with the notice requirements under the Employment Act. HOME considers the fears of workers regarding termination and deportation are very real and should not be discounted. The notice periods in the Employment Act are grossly insufficient. For example, employers only need to give one day’s notice, or one day’s salary in lieu of notice to workers who are in employment for less than 26 weeks. Moreover, employers have the unilateral right to cancel work permits without informing the worker in advance. There are no safeguards against this which makes them vulnerable to overstaying and hence, arrest and deportation. Domestic workers are not even covered by the Employment Act, making them even more vulnerable to arbitrary terminations and deportation. HOME has seen many cases of domestic workers whose employers have attempted to repatriate them with only a few hours’ notice, claiming that the provisions of the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations (the Work Passes Regulations) grant them the right to repatriate upon termination and cancellation of the work pass. Further, MOM does not assist workers in cases where it is their contractual rights which have been violated provided there has been no violation of the Work Passes Regulations. This leaves domestic workers with no other realistic avenues of redress, given the expense involved in pursuing a civil case against their employers for contract violation and also the lack of any right to remain in Singapore following the cancellation of their work pass.
6. Payment of outstanding salaries and moneys prior to repatriation: In its statement, MOM has emphasised that under the Work Pass Conditions, employers must ensure that all outstanding salaries and moneys are paid to foreign employees prior to their repatriation. HOME urges MOM to provide figures on employers who were prosecuted and taken to task for cancelling work permits without paying their workers. While it is good that MOM has a working arrangement with the Immigration Checkpoints Authority (ICA) for workers with employment grievances, the main issue facing workers who are terminated before their contract expires, is that they do not have effective redress for unfair and wrongful dismissals. The workers’ problems and grievances go beyond just ‘outstanding salaries and moneys due to the foreign employee’, and MOM has failed to address this. Further, the current system relies upon those workers with grievances taking the initiative to raise their concerns with ICA officers before departing from Singapore. HOME’s concern is that not all workers will be aware that this option is available to them, and/or they may fear further reprisals should they raise such concerns at the point of departure. More pro-active action should be taken by the government to ensure that all such grievances are acknowledged and appropriate and sufficient opportunities for redress are made available and known to all foreign workers.
7. Role of In-Principle Approval letters: MOM states that it has “improved its effort to educate foreign workers on their employment rights and avenues to seek help” through the issue of In-Principle Approval letters (IPA letters). HOME has seen many foreign workers who have only received the English versions of their IPA letters, and/or incomplete versions of the letters, because these letters are printed and issued to the workers by the employment agents or employers. Hence, this measure is not effective at all, especially when the employer and/or the agent has the intention of deceiving the workers. IPA letters are also not contracts with no effective means of enforcement. HOME is concerned that worker’s grievances will not be resolved simply because information is made available to them. Many employers of construction workers also wrongly declare the worker’s salary in the IPA letter; when the worker informs his employer that the employment terms printed in the IPA letter is not accurate, and is different from what was promised, the employer may either dismiss his concerns or tell him to return to his country if he is not satisfied. The law offers no protection to the worker when this happens. Education and orientation has to be paired with disincentives and penalties for employers who insist on violating Singapore’s labour laws. There should also be effective mechanisms for redress, which are sorely lacking at the moment. This is something which HOME urges MOM to address.
8. Employment bars on foreign workers: MOM has rebutted the claim in the TIP Report that Singaporean employers can submit complaints about worker behaviour to impose future employment bars on them, stating that only MOM has the authority to impose such employment bars where foreign workers have been found to have infringed Singapore laws and regulations. HOME’s concern is that while employers do not possess the powers to place employment bars on workers, they have considerable influence on MOM to do so, and this needs to be addressed. Employers may lodge police reports and submit negative feedback about workers and MOM may blacklist them based on such feedback. This method of blacklisting is unjust because the workers are often no longer around to respond to the employer’s negative feedback and allegations. Many employers also use the threat of “blacklisting” to discourage workers from lodging complaints.
9. Referral of MOM cases to the police: In response to the statement in the TIP Report that whilst MOM had conducted inspections of repatriation companies and employment agencies, particularly for passport withholding, it had not referred any leads to the police for investigation and prosecution for trafficking, MOM states that it had itself determined in all cases that elements of labour trafficking were not established and police referral was therefore not necessary. HOME notes with concern that repatriation companies have still not been outlawed in Singapore, even though their activities, which involve the confinement of migrant workers are illegal. Conducting just one operation to inspect what is an undesirable and illegal operation is insufficient as a response. Further, almost all of the 2000 workers that HOME sees every year have had their work permit cards and passports held by their employers. Workers who make official complaints about employers who hold on to their identity documents risk incurring the displeasure of their employers. They may subsequently be dismissed and repatriated. Even though the MOM acts on the complaints of workers whose passports and identity cards have been taken, they do not provide protection to workers who are repatriated because they have lodged a complaint about it. This common practice of employers confiscating passports and work permit cards must be urgently addressed by MOM.
10. Prosecution figures: In its response to the TIP Report, MOM has challenged the published prosecution figures, stating them to be factually inaccurate and that there have actually been 5 prosecutions for sex trafficking offenders rather than the stated 4. They also confirmed that in three further confirmed sex trafficking cases, the offenders were sternly warned. HOME urges MOM to make the statistics of all trafficking cases publicly available in order to ensure that its efforts to combat human trafficking are transparent and credible. Further, HOME strongly submits that a “stern warning” is a vastly inadequate response to finding someone responsible in any way for sex trafficking.
11. Redress for fishermen: In response to the statement in the TIP Report that foreign fishermen face significant difficulties when attempting to seek redress for the violation of their labour rights, including unpaid wages and wage deductions, MOM states that it does not have jurisdiction over foreign fishermen working in off-shore waters on non-Singapore flags but the Taskforce has nevertheless worked proactively with the port authorities, unions, seafarer missions and civil society organisations to improve the assistance available. HOME is gravely concerned about the situation facing fishermen, given that they are excluded from Singapore’s Employment Act, and they are also not recognised as seafarers, which severely limits the assistance which can be provided to them by the government and associations mentioned in the Taskforce response. HOME urges the Singapore government to ratify the ILO Work in Fishing Convention (C188, 2007) which provides comprehensive labour protections for fishermen.
12. Prosecution procedures: The TIP Report raised concern about the Singapore government’s practice of holding the passports of trafficked persons and declining their requests for repatriation so as to ensure they remained as material witnesses in cases against their traffickers. The Taskforce’s response that the presence of witnesses is necessary for successful prosecution but that witnesses always have the choice whether to remain or return and that their departure is facilitated should they opt for repatriation. It is HOME’s experience that many individuals who are suspected to be victims of trafficking do not pursue their cases against their traffickers due to their strong wish to return to their country of origin and/or avoid staying in Singapore to pursue a case and remain for lengthy periods during which inadequate support services and financial support are available to them. HOME considers the lack of a comprehensive victim assistance programme in Singapore to be the key factor in determining whether a trafficked person is willing to remain in the country to pursue his or her case and urges the Taskforce to make such a programme available. Further, HOME submits that the availability of any such victim assistance programme must not be conditional upon the participation of a trafficked individual in a prosecution case. HOME advocates for a victim-centred approach to combating trafficking which must prioritise the needs of the individual who has been trafficked above all else.
13. Penalties on convicted TIP offenders: The Taskforce responded to the TIP Report’s suggestion that the Singapore government has not demonstrated increased efforts to apply stringent penalties to convicted trafficking offenders by stating that Singapore’s trafficking offences carry penalties of up to 10 years. HOME notes that even though certain offences in the Singapore Penal Code address elements of trafficking, there are key aspects of the international definition of trafficking as set out in Section 3 of the UN’s Palermo Protocol which are not found anywhere in Singapore’s legislation. This means that many cases, particularly labour trafficking cases, remain undetected and unprosecuted. Worst still, there are cases in which trafficked persons themselves have been criminalised, especially when they are undocumented and are treated as immigration offenders whilst their traffickers remain at large. HOME urges the Taskforce to identify the significant gaps in the current legislation vis a vis the international definition of trafficking in persons and take steps to ensure that a comprehensive legislative response is put in place in order to combat all forms of trafficking in Singapore.
14. Assistance for victims: The Taskforce has responded to the statement in the TIP Report that the government has 24 children homes and dormitories available to house child trafficking victims by clarifying that child trafficking victims are not housed in dormitories but rather in homes. It also emphasised that MCYS funds shelters which offer protection for trafficking victims, including accommodation, medical care, counselling and translation services. HOME is concerned that the government has insufficient space for housing female migrant workers who have been subjected to exploitation and trafficking. HOME has in the past attempted to find accommodation for female migrant workers through the Ministry of Manpower and the Migrant Workers Centre but have found it very difficult to do so. HOME strongly believes that a far more comprehensive response is required of the Taskforce. Specialised victim assistance services are required, including shelters specifically intended for victims of trafficking. As stated above, HOME currently operates its own Victim Assistance Programme which seeks to address the gaps in protection offered by the government.
15. HOME encourages the Taskforce to maintain an open dialogue with civil society organisations given the importance of the implementation of the NPA in a transparent and accountable manner. Further, organisations such as HOME have extensive experience in providing assistance to victims of trafficking and other forms of labour exploitation which may assist the Taskforce in its work. In the Joint Civil Society statement submitted to the Taskforce in April 2012, the Taskforce was invited to formalise regular engagement with a forum of civil society organisations so as to ensure a collaborative approach to the NPA. A response has yet to be received from the Taskforce, but it is hoped that such engagement will be forthcoming so that positive progress can be made in the fight against trafficking in Singapore.