The poor meals offered to foreign workers, revealed in the report “Foreign workers ‘served unappetising, stale food’” (March 20), is a symptom of broader exploitation in Singapore, made more evident by the responses of the employers and the food caterers.
They appear to be more concerned about their financial performance, low-margin operations or pushing the blame around. The workers’ welfare seems to be the least of their concerns.
Employers justify the need for catered meals to reduce the “risk of work accidents”, since their migrant workers used to skip lunch to save money. (“Netizens outraged over foreign worker meals”; March 21)
This would be justified only if the amount these workers pay — more than S$100 a month for three catered meals a day, those interviewed said — is used solely for the meals.
On the other hand, the caterers lament the need to stay in the black and rail against illegal operators who “compromise on quality to cut corners”, therefore compromising on the workers’ well-being. Somewhere, profits are made at the workers’ expense.
Little is said about the poor remuneration foreign workers are offered and little fuss is made about living conditions in some dormitories where “the cooking facilities ... are inadequate”. If they could afford to, these workers who graft under exhausting conditions would not scrimp on meals.
Until this structural problem of insufficient compensation is addressed, providing meal allowances seems to be a fairer arrangement. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can ascertain whether the amount given is reasonable and the workers can decide on the purchase of food or ingredients.
If employers still prefer catering, the MOM must work more closely with the National Environment Agency to ensure safe delivery times, storage methods and proper nutrition.
For fear of reprisal, foreign workers may be apprehensive about blowing the whistle. So, through existing spot checks at work sites, imposing heavier penalties could remove financial incentives for exploitation.
The outrage over these poor meals reflects growing awareness of the plight of many migrant workers in our midst, especially with the work of non-governmental organisations.
However, these sentiments will count for little if government action against the perpetrators is not forthcoming. Driven by profits, companies will find ways to maximise their interests, even if their employees’ welfare is compromised.
Inaction cannot persist.
They appear to be more concerned about their financial performance, low-margin operations or pushing the blame around. The workers’ welfare seems to be the least of their concerns.
Employers justify the need for catered meals to reduce the “risk of work accidents”, since their migrant workers used to skip lunch to save money. (“Netizens outraged over foreign worker meals”; March 21)
This would be justified only if the amount these workers pay — more than S$100 a month for three catered meals a day, those interviewed said — is used solely for the meals.
On the other hand, the caterers lament the need to stay in the black and rail against illegal operators who “compromise on quality to cut corners”, therefore compromising on the workers’ well-being. Somewhere, profits are made at the workers’ expense.
Little is said about the poor remuneration foreign workers are offered and little fuss is made about living conditions in some dormitories where “the cooking facilities ... are inadequate”. If they could afford to, these workers who graft under exhausting conditions would not scrimp on meals.
Until this structural problem of insufficient compensation is addressed, providing meal allowances seems to be a fairer arrangement. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can ascertain whether the amount given is reasonable and the workers can decide on the purchase of food or ingredients.
If employers still prefer catering, the MOM must work more closely with the National Environment Agency to ensure safe delivery times, storage methods and proper nutrition.
For fear of reprisal, foreign workers may be apprehensive about blowing the whistle. So, through existing spot checks at work sites, imposing heavier penalties could remove financial incentives for exploitation.
The outrage over these poor meals reflects growing awareness of the plight of many migrant workers in our midst, especially with the work of non-governmental organisations.
However, these sentiments will count for little if government action against the perpetrators is not forthcoming. Driven by profits, companies will find ways to maximise their interests, even if their employees’ welfare is compromised.
Inaction cannot persist.
