Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has defended Nee Soon Town Council’s response to the six-year-long kickback scandal involving 57 migrant workers, stating that the council’s decision to report the case to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) demonstrated the effectiveness of whistleblower mechanisms.
His comments on 1 February 2025 came after mounting political criticism, including from opposition leaders Pritam Singh and Red Dot United (RDU), who questioned why the illegal kickback scheme went undetected for so long.
The scandal centres on Derrick Ho Chiak Hock, a former operations manager at Lian Cheng Contracting Pte Ltd, a cleaning services provider for Nee Soon Town Council and other constituencies, including Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC.
Between 2014 and 2020, Ho collected over S$396,000 in kickbacks from 57 migrant workers in exchange for renewing their work permits. The workers paid amounts ranging from S$1,500 to S$15,500 each.
The abuse was said to have been uncovered only in 2020 after an anonymous complaint prompted the Nee Soon Town Council to report the case to MOM.
Ho was subsequently convicted in November 2024 and sentenced to 24 weeks of imprisonment.
The Straits Times revisited the case on 31 January 2025, publishing interviews with affected workers who described being pressured into paying the kickbacks under fear of job loss.
This report reignited public attention and drew criticism from opposition leaders. Pritam Singh, Leader of the Opposition and Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party (WP), and RDU both questioned why the kickbacks were not detected through proactive oversight and why it took an anonymous whistleblower to expose the scheme.
Shanmugam defended the Town Council’s response, explaining that once the complaint was brought to the attention of the MPs, they unanimously agreed to escalate the matter to MOM. “If people understand the full context, they will see that this case demonstrates the system working as intended,” Shanmugam said. “It was the Town Council’s report that allowed the authorities to act quickly, ensuring that the wrongdoer was punished and the affected workers received their full salaries.”
However, critics remain unconvinced by Shanmugam’s explanation, with opposition figures highlighting the six-year delay before action was taken.
Pritam Singh, in a Facebook post on 31 January, wrote: “Kickbacks are one of the worst forms of worker exploitation. In 2021, I proposed changes to the law to address this issue. If anyone has information on similar cases, including those involving companies contracted by town councils under WP’s management, they should report it immediately.”
Singh’s remarks suggest that existing safeguards are inadequate and that reliance on whistleblowers alone is insufficient to prevent long-term exploitation.
Red Dot United issued a detailed statement questioning how the abuse persisted undetected for so long despite the workers operating within Nee Soon East estate. “A critical question arises: How did such exploitation persist for six years without being noticed?” the party asked.
The statement also took aim at Nee Soon East MP Louis Ng, a known advocate for migrant worker rights.
“If there was indeed deep engagement with these workers, as claimed, how did such abuses go unnoticed for years?” RDU asked. The party recommended several steps, including an independent audit of all contractors under the Town Council, stronger whistleblower protections, and public disclosure of existing safeguards to prevent further abuse.
RDU’s Secretary-General, Ravi Philemon, stressed the need for accountability. “This is not a partisan issue—it is a matter of justice. The workers who keep our estates clean deserve far better,” he said.
Shanmugam acknowledged the opposition’s concerns but warned against politicising the issue. “Everyone, including political parties, has the right to ask questions. But making accusations before understanding the full facts is regrettable,” he said.
He reiterated that the kickback scheme was the result of an individual’s misconduct rather than systemic negligence by the Town Council.
According to Shanmugam, Lian Cheng Contracting Pte Ltd has since been acquired by new management, which has implemented stricter operating procedures.
He also argued against penalising the company beyond the prosecution of Hu, citing the potential impact on innocent employees.
“We need to balance punishment with fairness. Terminating contracts could hurt the company’s current employees, including many Singaporeans who work there. Accountability must be targeted without causing unnecessary harm,” Shanmugam said.
Despite these reassurances, opposition leaders and critics continue to call for structural changes.
RDU argued that the Town Council’s responsibilities extend beyond maintaining estate infrastructure and should include safeguarding the welfare of workers employed under its contractors.
“A Town Council has a duty of care toward those who perform essential work. Any failure in oversight affects not only the workers but also residents who depend on consistent service quality,” RDU said.
Furthermore, questions are also raised by members of the public in comments over Lian Cheng Contracting’s continued involvement in public contracts, given its past violations.
In 2009, the company and its director, Cher Peng Ho, were fined S$8,500 and S$5,500, respectively, after pleading guilty to 15 charges under the Employment Act.
The company was found to have failed to provide annual leave to four employees over several years and had made unauthorised salary deductions from three employees between January and April 2008. Another 16 charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.
