SINGAPORE — A couple has been fined by a district court for orchestrating an assembly of foreign workers to demand unpaid wages from a construction company. On 26 September 2024, Rebecca Rubini Ravinthiran, 33, and her husband, Vee Derrick Mahendran, 36, faced penalties in connection with the incident that took place at two worksites in Singapore.
The Events Leading to the Court Ruling
Rebecca, who was the director of Scorpio Builders, had organised this act at Dakota Breeze and Tengah Garden Walk on 24 October 2024, enlisting the help of her employees to hold placards advocating for payment owed by TLT Construction and Rich Construction Company. Her husband managed the operations and finances of Scorpio Builders and was present to ensure compliance.
Charges and Fines
- Rebecca was fined S$8,500 for three charges, including:
- Organising a public assembly without a permit
- Instigating foreign workers to breach their work pass conditions
- Vee faced a fine of S$4,500 for his role in abetting his wife’s actions.
In court, Rebecca expressed remorse and requested leniency due to financial difficulties, resulting in her being allowed to pay her fine in instalments. Vee paid his fine in full.
Background of the Incident
Prior to the incident, attempts to secure payment from TLT Construction had been unsuccessful, leading to the couple’s decision to escalate the matter. They had allegedly not only prepared placards but also instructed workers on the specifics of the assembly, putting them in a precarious legal position.
Legal Implications
The prosecution highlighted that the involvement of the workers in holding placards without a permit violated the Public Order Act, rendering the assembly illegal. This incident has raised concerns regarding worker rights and legal boundaries for employers.
The court noted that while the assembly lacked violence or public disorder, the actions did breach specific regulations that govern public assemblies.
Financial Strain on the Family
With four young children relying on them, the couple’s situation has become dire, as both stated their businesses were no longer operational. The judge considered this context during sentencing, contrasting the private nature of their case with broader public causes advocated in past assembly cases.
While the severity of their financial situation has been acknowledged, the line between advocating for workers’ rights and operating within legal limits remains a contentious issue in Singapore’s socio-economic landscape.