Better Settle All Issues before Maid is Sent Home

Please refer to the letters, "No go for employer when maid refused to go" (The Straits Times, 19 Jan 2007) by Ms Phyllis Christe, "Let agencies deal with errant maids" (The Straits Times, 25 Jan 2007) by Mrs Gurmit Kaur Sroya and "Why employer had to send errant maid home" (The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2007) by Ms Phyllis Christe.

2.   Both employers and Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) would be better protected if all outstanding issues are settled before the FDW is repatriated. MOM therefore allows FDWs to stay in Singapore while investigating into their claims. This ensures that FDWs have an adequate recourse to alleged claims like unpaid salaries and also prevents the employer of being wrongly accused after the FDW has left the country.

I refer to Mrs Gurmit Kaur Sroya's letter, 'Let agencies deal with errant maids' (ST, Jan 25). She seems to imply that the maid's actions should have been accepted and she should simply have been allowed to move on. However, the mere fact that she needed to recoup her expenses did not stop her from going on strike or demanding to be sent back to the agency. The missing jewellery was never recovered but instead a brand new Nokia cellphone was found.

The outstanding issues Mrs Sroya raised do not apply to us. She was given a bag full of clothes and toys for her children back home despite the unpleasant situation. Wages paid were recorded and cost of air ticket was borne by us as part of our duty to repatriate her. In addition, we had to pay for a second ticket since she was offloaded and gave her an additional $350 to help her settle her outstanding loan back home. The point is, trust was broken and there was no way I could send her to another family knowing what she is capable of. It is the prerogative of the employer to decide if the agency should be involved or not. We chose not to as the role of the maid agency in this case would have been to find her a new employer.

Who decides if there are outstanding issues - the airline staff, the Ministry of Manpower or the maid agency? Is it that simple for such maids to get away with baseless accusations? It was confirmed by the airport police that she had changed her mind, that she wanted to go back to the agency. It is very fortunate we had everything recorded on tape when we told her of our decision to send her home and our reasons and she had agreed. In the same way, payments made, including the additional money she received, were recorded.

It was not a simple matter of different expectations and maids are definitely not less empowered than us. The mere fact that the employer of a foreign domestic worker is guilty until proven innocent attests to that.

I refer to the letter, 'No go for employer when maid refused to go' (ST, Jan 19), by Ms Phyllis Christe. Ms Christe should have returned her maid to the agency instead of taking action of her own. She must appreciate the role of the agency. Agencies go out of their way to source for maids who meet the minimum standards stipulated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) amid competition from other countries which offer better pay and working conditions.

Maids take on huge loans just to work in Singapore. We welcome them as we need them. The agencies have a moral obligation to ensure that they are able to recoup their expenses and earn enough to feed their families back home. I understand that Ms Christe was flustered when her maid went on strike after she queried her on her missing jewellery and how she acquired a new mobile phone.
Ms Christe should have lodged a police report after she found her jewellery missing. She should also let the agency mediate and take the necessary action in accordance with the rules and regulations stipulated by MOM.

It is right that the maid was offloaded from the plane because no maid should be sent home with issues outstanding. If we allow maids to be sent off without the agency's involvement, it may result in employers sending off their maids on the slightest whim. Salaries must be settled in full and air tickets must be paid for by employers. Any allegation, such as of abuse, has to be addressed. My plea to employers is to give the benefit of the doubt to maids, just as we would want to be given the benefit of the doubt by our employers. You would not be happy if you were working in a foreign country and your employer deports you just because you chose not to work for him.

Let us be gracious and demonstrate basic human kindness. Let us not decide the fate of people who are less empowered than us. If your expectations differ from your maid's, just move on. Better still, look for alternative arrangements regarding domestic help.

Our foreign maid who had been with us for five months went on strike recently and refused to do any household chores after we queried her on missing jewellery and how she acquired a new mobile phone. She demanded to be sent back to her agency although she was on a contract and had to settle a loan. We decided then to send her home and cancel her work permit.The incident that followed at the airport came as a complete shock. Our maid was offloaded from the plane after she informed the airline staff that she had contacted a friend who used to work at her maid agency and was told not to board the plane.

We then took her to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) where I was told that although it was my responsibility to repatriate her, she had to be willing to go. The officer suggested taking her back to her agency, contacting the embassy or simply finding out what she wanted. I had to demand that the MOM staff cancel her work permit immediately. I was then told that if she still did not get on the next flight, she would be overstaying and it would remain my problem because, surprisingly, the police could not enforce the law in this regard. I was told again to find out what she wanted. That was exactly what I did and it cost me an additional 10,000 pesos (S$315) just to get her on the next flight.

Does MOM speak to its employees to find out what they want before terminating their services or is this something that is applicable only to employers of foreign maids? When a maid refuses to leave and ends up overstaying, is the employer then charged with harbouring an illegal worker? Why should an employer be forced to return a maid to the agency when it is, after all, the employer who has a $5,000 maid bond attached to the contract with MOM?