recruited by a BPO company in Singapore had a signed, conditional offer of employment withdrawn after months of delay attributable to the employer’s own slow processing of the work-pass application — and this occurred immediately after the worker had already resigned from their existing job in reliance on the offer. Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower advised that, because employment had not yet commenced, the Employment Claims Act did not apply; the worker was unable to access standard administrative remedies and was limited to a civil claim through the courts. 4.12 Company-Wide Rehire Bans Disproportionate to the Underlying Incident In one consultation, a worker who was terminated over a single processing error — in a department that lacked adequate training and subject-matter-expert support — was notified of a one-year rehire ban across the entire corporate group, including departments entirely unrelated to the incident, despite no financial penalty being imposed. Combined with the absence of any visible consequence for the prolonged inaction of the supervisor who contributed to the error, this illustrates how disciplinary action is disproportionately directed at frontline workers relative to supervisory failures. 4.13 Arbitrary Team-Leader Rotation and Restricted Internal Transfers In two additional cases from Concentrix, a rotation system was reported under which staff are reassigned to a new team leader roughly every two months on what is effectively a random basis — an experience workers described as “a lottery.” An unlucky rotation can mean prolonged exposure to an unsupportive or abusive supervisor. Separately, a request for an internal transfer seeking to escape a difficult team was rejected on the grounds of a minimum one-year tenure requirement, even though another worker in a comparable position was reportedly approved for a transfer at around the same time. 4.14 Failures in Post-Departure Tax and EPF Recovery Follow-up documentation from resolved cases shows that, months after the original salary and bonus payments were secured, two distinct downstream problems surfaced. An overpayment of tax for the relevant year came to light only after a second LHDN visit, and had not been refunded automatically. Separately, even though the employer’s own payment records confirmed that EPF contributions had been remitted, the worker’s KWSP statement carried an internal note reading “rejected by accounting,” and the remitted funds had not in fact been credited to the worker’s personal account. In both cases, the worker had already relocated outside Malaysia by the time the problem was discovered, making in-person follow-up impossible. Resolving each case required a signed power of attorney authorizing a third-party representative to inquire with, confirm with, and recover funds from the relevant authorities (LHDN and KWSP) on the worker’s behalf. 4.15 Unadjusted KPI Targets After Approved Leave, and Retroactive Changes to Leave Policy A case from TDCX reported a KPI structure in which monthly call-volume targets were not reduced to reflect approved annual or replacement leave. For example, if a worker took 10 of a month’s 22 working days as leave, the monthly target remained unchanged — meaning the same total volume had to be achieved over fewer working days, proportionally increasing the daily workload relative to the leave taken. The same worker also reported that the underlying target figure itself was revised multiple times within a relatively short period (fluctuating from 500 to 770 to 700), with no rationale communicated to staff for the changes. Separately, replacement-leave entitlements that previously carried no expiry were made subject to a new rule — forfeiture if not used within three months — following a change in team leader, again with no policy rationale provided. Sukimare Consulting — White Paper (July 2026) Page 9