The sentencing of Derrick Ho Chiak Hock, 55, to 24 weeks in jail for collecting S$396,440 in kickbacks from 57 Bangladeshi migrant workers has renewed scrutiny of the oversight mechanisms at Singapore’s town councils, which are managed by elected Members of Parliament (MPs).
The kickbacks, collected between 2014 and 2020, highlight not only systemic issues within the cleaning and maintenance sector but also the failure of key stakeholders to detect and address the exploitation.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) called this case one of the largest kickback investigations in recent years, but it follows a similar scenario in 2014 involving Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC.
In that incident, estate cleaners were allegedly forced to pay agent fees under threats of deportation, with seven workers eventually repatriated despite their pleas for justice. The persistence of such cases raises concerns about whether measures taken since then have been sufficient—or if they are merely cosmetic.
Town councils and MPs: A blind spot in contractor management?
Town councils are responsible for appointing and supervising estate contractors, including cleaning firms. With MPs and office holders such as Teo Chee Hean (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), K. Shanmugam, and Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon GRC) overseeing these town councils, questions have arisen as to why the kickback scheme remained undetected for so long.
From 2014 to 2020, Ho demanded S$1,500 for a one-year work pass renewal and S$3,000 for a two-year renewal.
Workers like Mr Rahman Lutfor paid up to S$6,000 in kickbacks over four years, fearing job loss if they refused. Mr Rahman, who wiped out his savings and borrowed from colleagues, said via an interpreter in a Straits Times report: ‘I was scared that if I said I didn’t want to pay, I would be sent home and lose my job.’
Another worker, Mr Hanif Mohammed, who paid Ho S$5,600 over four years, revealed: “Ho told us it was company policy. I didn’t know kickbacks were illegal, and I couldn’t risk questioning him. If I lost my job, my family would suffer.”
These statements mirror the fear expressed by workers in the 2014 Pasir Ris-Punggol case, where workers said: “It’s not fair that we are sent back because we are unwilling to pay agent money. Where is the justice?” The parallels between the two incidents raise concerns about whether structural issues have been adequately addressed.
The failure of town councils to detect these schemes suggests gaps in their monitoring processes. Town councils often review contractor performance based on surface-level metrics such as cleanliness standards and operational efficiency, but they appear to lack the mechanisms to audit employment practices or engage meaningfully with workers on the ground.
In the 2014 case, when workers raised concerns about agent fees, they were reportedly dismissed as having “performance issues.” However, there was no evidence of disciplinary warnings issued to the workers. Audio recordings later confirmed that managers were aware of the fees and had directly pressured workers to pay. This raises the question: Have town councils learned from past failures, or do they continue to ignore warning signs of worker exploitation?
MOM’s role and limitations
MOM, despite being alerted to the Pasir Ris-Punggol case in 2014, would appear to have failed to take effective action. Although the ministry advised workers at the time to request receipts for any payments made, it did not prevent their eventual repatriation. In the current case, it was only after an anonymous complaint in 2020 that MOM intervened, deploying investigators and raiding Ho’s home, where they found S$326,305 in cash and detailed records of the kickbacks.
While MOM has since strengthened measures, including mandatory payslips and data analytics to detect unusual hiring patterns, critics argue that relying on workers to report abuse is insufficient.
Migrant workers often face significant barriers to speaking up, including fear of job loss, language difficulties, and lack of access to legal protection.
Mr Ethan Guo, executive director of Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), warned that the current system remains reactive rather than preventive. “We’ve seen this before,” he said. “Workers don’t report because they’re scared, and by the time action is taken, it’s often too late.”
Structural problems in Singapore’s reliance on cheap labour
Singapore’s dependence on cheap labour contributes to these recurring problems. Workers often arrive heavily indebted after paying recruitment fees, making them vulnerable to exploitation.
In the 2014 instance, TOC reported that workers in Pasir Ris-Punggol paid S$10,500 upfront to secure jobs and an additional S$2,500 for work permit extensions, only to be asked for more fees later.
Despite these heavy financial burdens, the workers earned as little as S$700 a month, working seven days a week without rest days or medical leave. Similarly, in Ho’s kickback scheme, workers like Mr Rahman earned just S$1,200 a month, with most of their earnings drained by kickbacks and living expenses.
The financial burden on workers has not significantly changed, as highlighted by Mr Rahman and other victims of Ho’s scheme. Mr Rahman wiped out his savings and borrowed from colleagues to pay S$6,000 over four years, leaving him with as little as S$200 a month for basic expenses.
Mr Guo also told The Straits Times that most workers choose to work in Singapore because they believe it has good laws and do not expect to be exploited.
He added that if kickbacks become widespread, workers may avoid coming to Singapore, and companies seeking ethical supply chains may hesitate to invest.
He said: “We keep assuming we will have a constant flow of cheap labour into Singapore. That is not always going to be the case. We need to stop taking these workers for granted.”
What needs to change?
To prevent a recurrence of such cases, experts have proposed key reforms:
- Establish mandatory whistleblowing frameworks: Town councils should implement confidential, easily accessible channels for workers to report misconduct without fear of retaliation or deportation.
- Enhance contractor audits: Rather than focusing only on surface-level operational outcomes like estate cleanliness, town councils must conduct regular audits of employment practices, directly engaging workers to detect exploitation early.
- Hold MPs accountable for contractor oversight: MPs must play a more active role in overseeing estate contractors and investigating complaints. The continued silence of MPs following major incidents raises serious questions about their level of involvement and responsibility in protecting workers’ rights.
The role of MPs: Were they aware but silent?
Despite MOM’s assurances of ongoing investigations, little has been heard from the MPs who oversee the town councils. Their lack of public statements, either to the media or through official channels, on how Ho’s scheme went undetected for six years reflects a broader concern: were they truly unaware of the exploitation—or did they know but chose not to act?
The silence from MPs today mirrors their response to the 2014 Pasir Ris-Punggol case, when workers were deported after raising concerns about illegal agent fees.
Back then, MP Zainal Sapari referred the complaints to MOM but largely accepted the contractor’s explanation that the workers were repatriated for performance issues, despite evidence of forced illegal payments. The parallels between the two cases highlight the ongoing failure to establish stronger accountability mechanisms.
This concern is further amplified by testimony from the repatriated workers in the 2014 case. Speaking to TOC, one worker alleged that companies providing estate services often collaborated closely with MPs, supplying manpower for community events. Workers recalled being tasked with setting up and moving items during grassroots activities, while the companies made donations in kind during festive events.
Such close relationships raise serious concerns about conflicts of interest that could deter MPs from scrutinising or publicly addressing misconduct by contractors. Without stronger accountability and independent oversight, incidents like Ho’s kickback scheme are likely to continue, leaving vulnerable workers at risk of further exploitation.
The perception of inaction will persist without stronger accountability
Unless MPs, town councils, and contractors are held to higher standards of accountability, the cycle of worker exploitation will likely continue. Public statements, transparent investigations, and follow-through on enforcement actions are necessary to restore trust. Without them, workers will remain vulnerable to abuse, unable to voice their concerns for fear of retaliation.
As Singapore reflects on this latest case, a key question emerges: how many more workers must suffer before meaningful reforms are implemented? The system, as it stands, appears to prioritise cost efficiency over human dignity. Until that changes, workers like Mr Rahman will continue to face financial ruin and exploitation while struggling to maintain the livelihoods they sought when they came to Singapore.
