An ill-judged and irresponsible scoop
The Online Citizen behaved irresponsibly yesterday on two counts.
1. They published a letter by Stephanie Chok that was not meant for them, and not in the public domain, and this raises a question of ethics.
2. Publication of the letter in The Online Citizen hurt the very people that Stephanie wanted to help through her letter.
What happened was this: On reading the Straits Times' story (Worker jailed for trespass at MOM, 26 May 2009) about the government prosecuting a Chinese migrant worker for wanting to commit suicide, Stephanie wrote a letter to the Straits Times. She circulated the letter among a few people (including me) with whom she had previously worked on migrant worker issues. In circulating it, she clearly said that it was meant for the Straits Times.
The Online Citizen picked it up and published it within hours. Now that it has appeared online, it is very unlikely that the Straits Times will publish it. Stephanie herself expressed disappointment with this turn of events.
How does it hurt migrant workers? If the letter had been published by the Straits Times, the government would be obliged to respond, as is their style. But on an online site, the government is likely to ignore it, going by its usual practice of ignoring online content.
The people who need help are the migrant workers. They are sometimes exploited by their employers, even when law is on their side, and they get virtually no assistance when they appeal to the relevant authorities for intervention and redress. If your social conscience is in the right place, you would weigh any action you're about to take and ask yourself: Would I be helping or hurting them?
Any website owner should know that leaving it to the Straits Times to publish the letter would offer the best chance of official attention to the problem; short-circuiting it would cheat the workers of Stephanie's best efforts. Therefore, the responsible thing for any website owner to do would be to hold back and let the optimum course of action take effect. That is provided that there isn't even a question of ethics of publishing a letter that wasn't meant for you.
It is true that part of the problem is that the Singapore government has a policy of ignoring concerns raised outside of the mainstream press. It shouldn't be so. A truly responsive government would pay attention to issues raised on both traditional and new media. Ideally, it shouldn't matter if a question is raised online or in the mainstream press.
But while we wait for that ideal world, migrant workers right here, right now, are treated very badly. We have to recognise the reality of the politics that exist and do our best for migrant workers within the present parameters.
Doing our best sometimes means holding back and letting a better platform take it. In the interest of people who most need help.
* * * * *
Now that it has become public prematurely, I might as well help publicise Stephanie Chok's letter, so that her concerns reach as many people as possible:
26 May 2009
Dear ST Forum,
I refer to the report ‘Jailed for 10 weeks’ (ST, 25 May 2009), in which a Chinese national was jailed for attempting suicide at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).
While not condoning rash and dangerous acts, it remains critical to interrogate the circumstances that drive individuals to such drastic measures.
As a citizen concerned about the wellbeing of workers, I have spoken to many China workers embroiled in work-related disputes. A common thread in many accounts is the apathy they encounter from MOM staff and the multiple barriers to procedural justice.
On one occasion, a construction worker from Jiangxi recounted how, after countless attempts to seek assistance for unclaimed wages, he commented (in frustration) that he may as well just jump because it seems pointless. The MOM officer said: "You can go and take a jump for all I care." The worker asked, "Just to be clear, you are saying you do not care at all about our affairs?" The MOM officer replied: "Yes, you can say that."
Another worker, a farmer from China who speaks no English, went to the MOM with a severe injury, which his employer did not report. He was given a scrap of paper with a URL scribbled on it, with no other explanation. The worker was thoroughly confused and asked me if it was the address of a hospital.
I have also heard stories where MOM officers have mocked, ignored and talked down to workers. I have personally witnessed an MOM officer yell at workers for daring to seek assistance from ‘outsiders’, and the same officer refusing to allow workers to speak during settlement meetings.
A worker driven to attempt suicide is most likely an individual who is desperate rather than criminal-minded. While risky acts that endanger public safety must be deterred, it seems misguided to punish Mr. Zhao without giving due recognition to the underlying factors that drive one to such acts.
From my experience of speaking to China workers in distress, bureaucratic indifference compounds the frustration for debt-laden workers under immense pressure to resolve disputes swiftly, often living in poor conditions and with dwindling financial resources. My guess is that much more than a jail sentence, empathy, professionalism and sincere efforts to ensure procedural justice will go much further in ensuring worker justice and public order.
Ms Stephanie Chok Juin Mei
* * * * *
Irresponsibility is something I would pin on the government too. Here we have workers who are desperate, because they have been exploited. They take their grievances to the government only to find very little help.
Zhao Erhui's complaint was not only that his salary was in arrears but that his eye had been hurt in welding work. I cannot judge the merit of his claims, but he must have been really distraught to have climbed to the roof of the Ministry of Manpower in order to jump off it.
For that he was initially charged for the crime of attempted suicide and now sentenced to 10 weeks' jail for trespassing on government property.
This looks to me like part of a general pattern where the government ignores the substantive issues but goes after the act of protest. It appears to be hoping that severe penalties for protesting will stop people from complaining without their having to do anything about the underlying grievances.
The mainstream media reports the story with a similar perspective. It then becomes a diversionary tactic. The public's attention is focussed on the "mischief" that some people get up to, without due attention on why they are so unhappy in the first place. And thus, structural problems are never addressed.
I am really upset tonight.
© Yawning Bread
The Online Citizen behaved irresponsibly yesterday on two counts.
1. They published a letter by Stephanie Chok that was not meant for them, and not in the public domain, and this raises a question of ethics.
2. Publication of the letter in The Online Citizen hurt the very people that Stephanie wanted to help through her letter.
What happened was this: On reading the Straits Times' story (Worker jailed for trespass at MOM, 26 May 2009) about the government prosecuting a Chinese migrant worker for wanting to commit suicide, Stephanie wrote a letter to the Straits Times. She circulated the letter among a few people (including me) with whom she had previously worked on migrant worker issues. In circulating it, she clearly said that it was meant for the Straits Times.
The Online Citizen picked it up and published it within hours. Now that it has appeared online, it is very unlikely that the Straits Times will publish it. Stephanie herself expressed disappointment with this turn of events.
How does it hurt migrant workers? If the letter had been published by the Straits Times, the government would be obliged to respond, as is their style. But on an online site, the government is likely to ignore it, going by its usual practice of ignoring online content.
The people who need help are the migrant workers. They are sometimes exploited by their employers, even when law is on their side, and they get virtually no assistance when they appeal to the relevant authorities for intervention and redress. If your social conscience is in the right place, you would weigh any action you're about to take and ask yourself: Would I be helping or hurting them?
Any website owner should know that leaving it to the Straits Times to publish the letter would offer the best chance of official attention to the problem; short-circuiting it would cheat the workers of Stephanie's best efforts. Therefore, the responsible thing for any website owner to do would be to hold back and let the optimum course of action take effect. That is provided that there isn't even a question of ethics of publishing a letter that wasn't meant for you.
It is true that part of the problem is that the Singapore government has a policy of ignoring concerns raised outside of the mainstream press. It shouldn't be so. A truly responsive government would pay attention to issues raised on both traditional and new media. Ideally, it shouldn't matter if a question is raised online or in the mainstream press.
But while we wait for that ideal world, migrant workers right here, right now, are treated very badly. We have to recognise the reality of the politics that exist and do our best for migrant workers within the present parameters.
Doing our best sometimes means holding back and letting a better platform take it. In the interest of people who most need help.
* * * * *
Now that it has become public prematurely, I might as well help publicise Stephanie Chok's letter, so that her concerns reach as many people as possible:
26 May 2009
Dear ST Forum,
I refer to the report ‘Jailed for 10 weeks’ (ST, 25 May 2009), in which a Chinese national was jailed for attempting suicide at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).
While not condoning rash and dangerous acts, it remains critical to interrogate the circumstances that drive individuals to such drastic measures.
As a citizen concerned about the wellbeing of workers, I have spoken to many China workers embroiled in work-related disputes. A common thread in many accounts is the apathy they encounter from MOM staff and the multiple barriers to procedural justice.
On one occasion, a construction worker from Jiangxi recounted how, after countless attempts to seek assistance for unclaimed wages, he commented (in frustration) that he may as well just jump because it seems pointless. The MOM officer said: "You can go and take a jump for all I care." The worker asked, "Just to be clear, you are saying you do not care at all about our affairs?" The MOM officer replied: "Yes, you can say that."
Another worker, a farmer from China who speaks no English, went to the MOM with a severe injury, which his employer did not report. He was given a scrap of paper with a URL scribbled on it, with no other explanation. The worker was thoroughly confused and asked me if it was the address of a hospital.
I have also heard stories where MOM officers have mocked, ignored and talked down to workers. I have personally witnessed an MOM officer yell at workers for daring to seek assistance from ‘outsiders’, and the same officer refusing to allow workers to speak during settlement meetings.
A worker driven to attempt suicide is most likely an individual who is desperate rather than criminal-minded. While risky acts that endanger public safety must be deterred, it seems misguided to punish Mr. Zhao without giving due recognition to the underlying factors that drive one to such acts.
From my experience of speaking to China workers in distress, bureaucratic indifference compounds the frustration for debt-laden workers under immense pressure to resolve disputes swiftly, often living in poor conditions and with dwindling financial resources. My guess is that much more than a jail sentence, empathy, professionalism and sincere efforts to ensure procedural justice will go much further in ensuring worker justice and public order.
Ms Stephanie Chok Juin Mei
* * * * *
Irresponsibility is something I would pin on the government too. Here we have workers who are desperate, because they have been exploited. They take their grievances to the government only to find very little help.
Zhao Erhui's complaint was not only that his salary was in arrears but that his eye had been hurt in welding work. I cannot judge the merit of his claims, but he must have been really distraught to have climbed to the roof of the Ministry of Manpower in order to jump off it.
For that he was initially charged for the crime of attempted suicide and now sentenced to 10 weeks' jail for trespassing on government property.
This looks to me like part of a general pattern where the government ignores the substantive issues but goes after the act of protest. It appears to be hoping that severe penalties for protesting will stop people from complaining without their having to do anything about the underlying grievances.
The mainstream media reports the story with a similar perspective. It then becomes a diversionary tactic. The public's attention is focussed on the "mischief" that some people get up to, without due attention on why they are so unhappy in the first place. And thus, structural problems are never addressed.
I am really upset tonight.
© Yawning Bread
