Ministry Does Take Action Against Errant Maids
- The Straits Times (24 May 2008) : Ministry Does Take Action Against Errant Maids
- The Straits Times (15 May 2008) : Maids Protected but Think of Employers too
Ministry Does Take Action Against Errant Maids
- The Straits Times, 24 May 2008
Please refer to Ms Jennifer Chan's letter, “Maids protected but think of employers too” (Straits Times, 15 May 2008). Ms Jennifer Chan has written to us previously and we have replied to her directly prior to the publication of her letter.
2. Employers are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of their foreign worker, including the provision of medical treatment because it would be unfair to expect the FDW to bear the cost. This condition is stated in the work permit.
3. Mandatory medical insurance of up to $5,000 for foreign domestic workers (FDW) was introduced to help employers manage their workers' medical bills. The insurance coverage requirement was set at a basic level to keep premiums affordable. However, employers who wish to have better coverage may purchase additional medical insurance.
4. MOM also takes action against errant FDWs. If the FDWs commit a criminal offence, they will face police investigation and possible prosecution. Future employers will also be told that a police report has been made against the FDW. If the FDW is convicted, they will be blacklisted from obtaining a work permit and will not be allowed to work in Singapore.
Maids Protected but Think of Employers too
- The Straits Times, 15 May 2008
Employers like me worry when we read reports of employers being saddled with their maids' huge medical bills. The Ministry of Manpower seems to have overlooked the rights and interests of employers.
Let me share two personal experiences.
About a year ago, I had to repatriate my maid because she was caught stealing money in our home. I had to pay for her airfare home as that was the law.
I could have saved on the repatriation if I had simply transferred her to another employer but I could not foist the problem on an unsuspecting employer.
Recently, I employed a new maid. She was with me for less than three weeks when she had to undergo an emergency operation to remove an ovarian cyst. I had to foot her entire medical bill as the ministry's ruling makes employers solely responsible for all medical and hospitalisation costs incurred by their maids.
She was a total stranger, barely three weeks with us, and I had to pay more than $6,000 in medical bills.
Under normal circumstances, would the employer of any other type of worker be expected to pay severance costs if he catches the worker embezzling funds?
And how many companies will pay the full medical and hospitalisation bills of their employees if such expenses are not covered by the company's insurance?
It is the norm for employees to pay out of their own pockets for whatever is not covered by their company's insurance.
In most cases, there is also an element of co-payment.
So can the mandatory insurance policies for maids that employers must buy cover the full extent of all medical expenses incurred by them?
Also, is it fair to expect so much from and impose so much on employers of maids when the employers themselves do not get the same benefits and privileges as employees?
Maids can seek redress from the ministry. What recourse do employers have?
This is not a level playing field.