Maids in Singapore- not humans?

Dear friends,
I have just sent the following letter to the Strait Times forum page today. I feel that in certain segments of our society, maids are not considered worthy of normal human rights. What do you say? Is it a non-issue?

Dear Editor,

I refer to the Straits Times article “Compulsory day off in new maid contracts” by Radha Basu dated 21 July 2006.

Despite the upbeat tone of the heading, there will in fact be almost no improvement in the welfare of our domestic maids as it is still not mandatory for them to have a weekly day of rest.

MP-elect Madam Halimah Yaacob, has correctly pointed out that even with the new contract which supposedly stipulates that maids should be “given a compulsory day off every month - or cash in lieu”, a maid would find it tough to go up against her boss “because the power relations are uneven”. And that is for a day off per month, not even the weekly off that she needs.

Ex- Nominated MP Braema Mathi, also said that the new contract offered too many options for potential “recalcitrant employers” who will exploit these loopholes. For example, she said, the clause on accommodation offers three options on where a maid will sleep - in the children's room, in a separate room and 'others'!

To me, contracts with words like “ others” and “or cash in lieu” are unenforcable and hence just a waste of ink.

In this day and age, when even the civil service has implemented 5-day weeks, is it so hard to understand that these 150,000 maids are just like you and I, requiring relaxation and rest?

These workers, who are an asset to our national economy, are not slaves and should be accorded the same human rights that you and I take for granted.

How can even a monthly day-off not be mandatory? I just cannot fathom the logic!

Abusive employers use threats of repatriation- when the maids stand to lose their life-savings, to ensure that the latter “toe the line” and not report maltreatment and other infringements.

The fear of forfeiture of the compulsory $5000 security bond, has caused many employers to keep their maids under lock and key. To them, this $5000 far exceeds the maids’ need for freedom.

I do not disagree with Consumer Association of Singapore president,MP-elect Yeo Guat Kwang who says that “rogue employers were more the exception than the rule” and that most Singaporean employers treat their maids humanely.

How then do we ensure that the recalcitrant “exceptions” get punished?

The mechanism for maids to report infractions in their contracts must be clearly spelled out so that all employers know that no abuses of their workers would be tolerated by the authorities.

However, many of us still hope for the day when all in Singapore, even oversea foreign workers, are treated equally- as fellow human beings.

Dr. Huang Shoou Chyuan


I am attaching the article for your convenience:

1.
Straits Times 21 July 2006 “Compulsory day off in new maid contracts “
By Radha Basu (Dr. Huang: I personally feel that the heading is misleading)

EMPLOYMENT contracts for maids will soon spell out that they be given a compulsory day off every month - or cash in lieu.

This will apply to contracts between maids and employers that are signed or renewed from Sept 15.

The contract, aimed at protecting maids from abuse, was unveiled yesterday by CaseTrust and the Association of Employment Agencies Singapore, which accredit 500-odd maid agencies.

The two bodies have also drawn up a second document - a standard service agreement binding employers and maid agencies, which requires transparency in fees payable and refund policies.

All accredited agencies have agreed to use both contracts from Sept 15.

Till now, contracts between employers and Singapore's 150,000 maids have been inconsistent. Reports of maids being denied days off or sufficient rest and food have surfaced, drawing ire from maid welfare advocates and human rights groups.

Calls for a day off to be enshrined in law have been made, but the Government has said Singapore laws provide enough protection, and urged maid agencies and accreditation bodies to design a standard contract to make rest days and other terms an industry standard.

Consumer Association of Singapore president Yeo Guat Kwang called the two documents 'a big step forward' in wiping out ambiguities about hiring maids.

The contract entitles maids to between one and four days off a month; if the maid gives up her day off, she must be paid.

Maid welfare advocates say the contract is a right move, but see more room to tighten some of the rules.

The president of civil society group Transient Workers Count Too, Braema Mathi, said the contract offered too many options - and thus, too much manoeuvring room - 'which may turn into loopholes for recalcitrant employers'. For example, she said, the clause on accommodation offers three options on where a maid will sleep - in the children's room, in a separate room and 'others', so 'an employer could make his maid sleep in the living room and still not breach the contract', she said.

Ms Bridget Lew, who heads the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, pointed out the contract still offers less protection than the law can, and that domestic maids are not guaranteed rest days under the Employment Act, unlike most other workers.

'Enforcing a contract will be far more difficult than enforcing a law,' she said.
Member of Parliament Madam Halimah Yaacob, another maid welfare advocate, said that even with the contract, a maid would find it tough to go up against her boss 'because the power relations are uneven'.

Mr Yeo, however, said rogue employers were more the exception than the rule, and that the Manpower Ministry would come down hard on that minority.

2. I am also linking a "tongue-in-cheek" rebuttal to another forum writer about this issue (more than one year ago). I was very sarcastic and caustic! Ouch!! It was entitled: " Insatiable? Lock them up then!"

3. Link to Human Rights Watch article