I would like to highlight the severe imbalances in Labor Laws governing relations between a worker and his/her employer.
When I was formerly employed by a new start-up now defunct ISP company a few years ago, I reluctantly allowed the director to temporarily not contribute CPF as he claimed he needed the funds to roll and tide the company through the initial year as this is also the practice of hawkers towards their stall assistants. I thought nothing of it at first as the government often says we Singaporeans are choosy about our work and there are sufficient laws to bring employers to task. Alas, I was wrong!
The director did however, signed some CPF forms after the Board discovered that while having Singaporean workers in the company, only some were contributing CPF. The Board then did not follow up with the default and allowed the director to subsequently flee the country in 2010 when an insolvent petition was being brought against the company (No.11 of 2010). When this same director fled Australia in 2012 after committing visa fraud, cheating and child molestation there, I alerted the Board which said pending CPF claims could not be enforced against an insolvent company.
I rebuffed the officer's accounts by seeing my MP and showing her Sections 60 and 65 of the CPF Act which provides for enforcement against a director for outstanding CPF contributions. She then reluctantly wrote to the Board which now flip flopped by stating that the director claimed the company was being run by friends who were just helping out and the salary and credit supplementary card were just "royalties" being handed out to us.
I couldn't believe what I just heard but moral of the story is, Never Trust Union Chief! In other First World Countries, the Interest of Workers is placed before Profits of the Company but in Singapore, the Words of an Errant Employer is trusted above that of Peasant Workers!