Tag: India

  • 2 Foreigners Found Dead In Hotel 81 Palace Geylang

    2 Foreigners Found Dead In Hotel 81 Palace Geylang

    Two people were found dead in Hotel 81 Palace at Lorong 16 Geylang on Sunday (Feb 1), in what is believed to be a murder-cum-suicide case.

    The Singapore Civil Defence Force said they were alerted to the incident at 7.50pm. A woman in her 20s and a man in his 30s were pronounced dead at the scene.

    Channel NewsAsia understands that the two dead are a 29-year-old woman from Indonesia and a 31-year-old man from India. Both were in Singapore on work permits.

    They were both found motionless in a room on the third floor of the hotel. The man was fully dressed, while the woman was partially clothed, with visible injuries on her body.

    The hotel’s manager declined to comment on the incident.

    Police investigations are ongoing.

     

    Source www.channelnewsasia.com

  • 3 Muslim Villagers Burned To Death Following Hindu-Muslim Clashes In India

    3 Muslim Villagers Burned To Death Following Hindu-Muslim Clashes In India

    PATNA (India) — At least three Muslim villagers were burned to death yesterday (Jan 18) when their thatched huts were set on fire during a clash between Hindu and Muslim groups in eastern India, a government official said.

    Mr Atul Prasad, a Bihar state administrator, said the violence erupted after the body of a young Hindu boy was found in Sarayian village more than a week after he went missing.

    Mr Prasad said Hindu fishermen blamed Muslims for killing the boy who was friendly with a Muslim girl from the village, 105km north of Patna, the capital of Bihar state.

    The charred bodies of three Muslims were found in the burned huts in the poor community, he said.

    Police arrested eight Hindu men, and Mr Prasad said the situation remains tense but under control in the village.

    Hindus make up more than 80 per cent and Muslims nearly 13 per cent of India’s 1.2 billion people. They largely live peacefully in various parts of the country, but there is occasional violence.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • If You Aren’t Chinese You Can’t Compete In Singapore

    If You Aren’t Chinese You Can’t Compete In Singapore

    NOVEMBER 30 — The owner of the famous local briyani restaurant Blue Diamond, Abdul Hameed Mohamed Farook, is being prosecuted for hiring workers on an S pass (a visa category that requires a salary of S$2,200 or RM5,708 a month) but paying them far less.

    This might appear quite patently dishonest and illegal, and I’m all for paying workers a fair wage, but it seems to me he had little choice.

    His business is an Indian restaurant and to run an Indian restaurant you need Indian workers, or in a pinch maybe Pakistani or Bangladeshi workers.

    However, Singapore doesn’t in fact allow you to hire Indian or any South Asian workers as restaurant staff. In fact, they can’t be given work permits for any jobs in the service sector which includes Retail, Restaurants, and Beauty among others.

    The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) which regulates labour on the island has decreed that work permits in the service sector must only be granted to workers from North Asian sources; the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Macau and an exception is made for Malaysia. (http://www.mom.gov.sg/foreign-manpower/passes-visas/work-permit-fw/before-you-apply/Pages/service-sector.aspx)

    Now, Singapore is reliant on foreign labour. Any large scale business must hire foreigners — to stack shelves, to staff kitchens, to man pliers and tweezers.

    But according to the MOM these foreigners can only come from one country — the People’s Republic (and to some extent Malaysia). Because no one is really going to be importing shelf stackers and pot stirrers from Hong Kong or South Korea.

    This puts any non-Chinese business at a disadvantage as PRC workers tend to speak only Chinese and it is never easy to manage staff you can’t communicate with. It puts these community facing businesses at a particular disadvantage; perhaps an Indian-run shop can make do with PRC shelf stackers, but a Malayalee restaurant or saree store is unlikely to be able to manage.

    Now you can say this is all to protect some sort of ethnic balance because there are so many Indian and Bangladeshi workers in construction that having service sector workers from China balances things out.

    But firstly isn’t maintaining a “correct” race balance in itself a dubious exercise? And even if we accept this need for racial quotas, exceptions must be made for community facing businesses.

    The local Indian community is simply too small and the Malaysian Indian community hardly large enough to provide the labour for local Indian restaurants, beauty parlours, flower shops and the like. And the fact that Chinese shops, hairdressers and restaurants have access to effectively unlimited cheap labour gives them an innate advantage.

    The situation is patently unfair as it privileges one race over the other.

    What does this policy say to us? That Filipinos can be maids but not servers? Indians are good for being construction coolies but we don’t want to see them as hotel staff? This is why you see Mandarin-speaking servers struggling to pronounce Palak Paneer across the curry houses of Singapore.

    It’s destroying Singaporean businesses: Indians, Malays and Eurasians have been put in a position where they can’t compete on equal terms. The incentive to break and bend the rules in order to hire staff you can communicate with is very high and Blue Diamond is very unlikely to be the only offender.

    For simply wanting to hire staff who speaks their language, a whole community is liable to be criminalised and if you ask me, that’s racist.

    *These are the opinions of the columnist, Surekha A Yadav.

     

    Source: http://www.themalaymailonline.com

  • Companies Force Foreign Workers out of Singapore

    FT1

    Bapari Jakir’s employers wanted to see him off the job, but the welder was heavily in debt and didn’t want to go back to Bangladesh. So, he says, they encouraged him to leave — by hiring a company whose thugs held him captive in a room, holding a knife to his throat.

    Singapore needs foreign workers, but it doesn’t want them to overstay their welcome, and firms get fined when they do. That has created a market for “repatriation companies,” which deny allegations from activists and the United States that they use illegal tactics to expel foreign workers.

    The country’s wealth and continued growth rely in large part on foreign workers like Jakir, who build its skyline and maintain its top-notch infrastructure. Yet as the numbers of migrant workers soar, tales of abuse and exploitation are threatening to take some of the shine off the city-state’s international reputation.

    In December, migrant workers from South Asia rioted in the country’s first social unrest for more than 40 years. Some activists claim that anger over working conditions might have been a factor in the riots, which shocked a nation long seen as an island of stability in an unruly region.

    The activities of “repatriation companies” are a major source of concern for activists on the tightly controlled island.

    Firms hiring foreign labor must lodge 5,000 Singapore dollars ($3,900) bond with the government for each worker that is returnable only when they leave. Some firms employ companies to hunt down fired or laid-off workers, or those whose contracts have expired, and put them on a plane.

    After more than year in the job, Jakir said he was taken to a repatriation company’s office in August 2012 because his employer wanted him out of the country before his contract expired. He wasn’t given a reason, but suspects it was because they thought he was disruptive on account of his assertiveness in pressing for more working hours.

    FT2

    Once inside the office, he was asked to sign a document by three “big gangsters” stating that his employers didn’t owe him any salary arrears. He refused because he figured doing so would make it easier for them to repatriate him. He then alleges he was punched and had “a knife put to his neck.” Jakir was able to call a friend, who in turn contacted migrant rights activist Jolovan Wham.

    Jakir was allowed to leave the officers of the repatriation company after Wham signed a form stating that he would be responsible for paying the bond should he run away or disappear. Jakir is now living at a friend’s house, while his case is appealed. He wants to keep on working in the country to pay back the S$9,000 ($7,100) debt he took out to pay agents who got him the job in Singapore.

    “My father is sick now and he can’t work anymore. My two younger brothers have stopped school because I can’t send money home anymore. I also cannot call them often so I worry how they are doing,” he said.

    Jakir’s case was handled by UTR Services, the largest repatriation company in Singapore.

    In an email, the head of the company denied the allegations, which he said were fabricated.

    “We build good relationships with workers we are sending back. In fact some workers visit us when they return back to Singapore,” said J. Ravi. “If a worker refuses to go back, we will first find the reason for his refusal and if there is a valid reason, we may than refer him to the relevant authorities to legalize his stay pending outcome of his case.”

    In its 2013 report on human trafficking, the United States said the some repatriation companies in Singapore had “seized and confined” workers and used “assaults, threats and coercion to get them to the airport.” The report added that the high costs of coming to Singapore to work via agent fees “makes migrants very vulnerable to forced labor, including debt bondage.”

    Singapore’s manpower ministry said the Jakir’s case was “with the police.” In a statement, it said companies were obliged to follow the law when sending migrant workers home, and were not allowed to confine them. It said last year the ministry investigated four allegations of abuse by repatriation companies, but they were found to be unsubstantiated. The manpower ministry said it was aware of cases where foreign workers paid high fees to employment agents in their home countries before coming to Singapore, but it said the Singapore government was unable to regulate this.

    One of the wealthiest countries in the world, Singapore has about 1.1 million foreign workers out of a population of 5.3 million. The vast majority of them are low wage workers from developing countries — mainly from India, China and Bangladesh.

    Complaints about overcrowding and the difficulties some Singaporeans face in finding well-paid work are leading to discontent and anti-foreigner sentiment, a worry for the government given the key role imported labor plays in the country’s economic life.

    Compared to other places that rely on migrant workers like Dubai, conditions in Singapore are seen as relatively good. Most workers leave after a few years with the kind of savings they would have little chance of building if they had stayed at home.

    Yet, activists like Wham say many employers use repatriation companies to help them manage workers whom they perceive to be giving them problems or to get rid of those who are injured. Some say employers use the threat of repatriation to keep workers from arguing over pay disputes.

    Ravi from UTR Services said he repatriated around 1,200 workers last year. He said companies pay him S$250-S$350 ($199-$278) per worker, depending on the complexity of the job and time. On the average, he said it takes his company between six and eight hours to get the job done.

    Source: Associated Press