Key takeaways
- Regardless of the nature of the employment relationship, the intended activities or the duration of work, employers should always ensure that foreigners who carry out work for the company hold a valid work pass.
- It is an offence for companies to employ foreigners without a valid work pass and the company may be subject to penalties, if convicted.
In more detail
The foreigner, Stuart Calum Arthur Alistair, was on a long-term pass in Singapore from 2015 to 2019, when he carried out freelance work in Singapore without a valid work pass between 2015 and 2016.
In August 2015, Stuart took up a job offer with a news agency with a salary of SGD 4,500 a month, but did not sign an employment contract. The company applied for an Employment Pass on his behalf in August 2015, but it was rejected by the Ministry of Manpower in September 2015. The company then applied for a Letter of Consent, which would allow him to work in Singapore, but this was also rejected in December 2015. While waiting for the Letter of Consent application to be approved, the news agency offered him a freelance job, which he took up for approximately six months from November 2015 to July 2016.
Stuart also worked as a freelance writer for an online publisher between June 2015 and August 2015, a job he obtained through an individual. While Stuart informed the individual that he did not have a valid work pass in Singapore, the individual still offered him the job. Stuart took up the job and signed an employment agreement with the online publisher.
Stuart was fined SGD 6,500 for providing freelance work without a valid work pass. It is noteworthy that the news agency was also fined SGD 5,000 for employing Stuart despite knowing that he did not have a valid work pass, and the individual was fined SGD 4,000 for his role in abetting Stuart to take up employment without a work pass.
In recent times, we have observed the Singapore authorities taking an increasingly strong stance against breaches of the EFMA against both individuals and employers.
In particular, it is an offence under the EFMA (among others) for:
- Foreigners to work in Singapore without a valid work pass. Persons who are found guilty of the offence may be liable to a fine of up to SGD 20,000 and/or two years' imprisonment.
- Employers to employ a foreigner without a valid work pass. Employers who are found guilty may be liable to a fine of at least SGD 5,000 up to SGD 30,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 12 months. Enhanced penalties will also be imposed for reoffenders — individuals may be liable to a fine of at least SGD 10,000 up to SGD 30,000 and/or imprisonment of at least one month up to 12 months; and entities may be subject to a fine of at least SGD 20,000 up to SGD 60,000.
- Persons to abet the commission of an offence under the EFMA. Such persons may be liable to be punished with the penalties provided for that offence, if found guilty.
In addition to the penalties that can be imposed for offences under the EFMA, the Controller of Work Passes has wide powers to debar any person from applying for or being issued with a work pass for any fixed period of time.
Accordingly, employers should err on the side of caution and ensure that any foreigner that it engages to carry out work has a valid work pass in Singapore, regardless of the nature of the employment relationship, the intended activities and the duration of work. This would avoid potential sanctions and the risks of the employer not being able to apply for new work passes — a sanction that could be extremely damaging to the business.
* * * * *
© 2022 Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
