TODAY (25 June 2011) : Truth about security bonds
TODAY (24 June 2011) : Start with two rest days a month
TODAY (24 June 2011) : Penalise maid, not employer
TODAY (21 June 2011) : Maids deserve time off too
Truth about security bonds
- TODAY, 25 June 2011
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) would like to clarify some questions about the security bond posted by employers of foreign domestic workers (FDWs).
2. The security bond is aimed at ensuring that employers remain responsible for the proper upkeep and maintenance, as well as prompt salary payment to foreign workers. It also prevents illegal deployment and ensures the timely repatriation of foreign workers. The security bond applies to employers of both foreign domestic and non-domestic workers. These conditions are made known upfront when employers apply for a Work Permit on behalf of their foreign workers.
3. From 2005 to 2010, MOM forfeited an average of 65 (less than 0.04%) security bonds for FDWs each year. As of December 2010, there were 201,000 FDWs working in Singapore.
4. MOM understands employers' concerns that they should not be held responsible when their FDWs violate the Work Permit conditions on their own accord, especially outside designated work hours or on their rest days. Therefore, since January 2010, MOM has removed employers’ liability if the FDW gets pregnant or breaches other Work Permit conditions that relate to her own behaviour. It is untrue that the $5,000 security bond will be forfeited for pregnancy.
5. Even in the extreme case where the FDW absconds and the employer is unable to repatriate her, only half of the security bond will be forfeited, so long as the employer has made reasonable efforts to locate the FDW. The forfeited security bond is used to cover repatriation and other related costs once the worker is found, so that it does not exact a cost on taxpayers in Singapore. This includes the cost of providing food and temporary accommodation, as well as arranging for her repatriation to her home country. This is also the case for non-domestic foreign workers.
6. MOM is studying the suggestion for the Government to legislate a weekly rest day for FDWs, with compensation in-lieu when the FDW and employer mutually agree that the rest day be foregone. We will need to consult with all stakeholders, including employers, employment agencies, domestic workers and non-governmental organizations. MOM would like to reassure employers that all views and feedback would be considered. Further, should there be any changes, sufficient notice will be provided. Members of the public can email their views and suggestions to mom_fmmd@mom.gov.sg.
Start with two rest days a month
- TODAY 24 June 2011
Should the Government make it compulsory for maids to get a rest day every week, I hope the Manpower Ministry would also make adjustments concerning the worker's levy and the security bond.
The worker's levy has inflated the cost of hiring a maid and, if it is removed, it would help employers to compensate the maid if her service is required on her day off.
The conditions attached to the security bond have been watered down to the extent that I am not sure if it still serves the original purpose. Retaining it only adds to the cost for the employer and, if waived, the savings could be deployed towards getting a part-time helper on the maid's rest day.
It seems inevitable that legislation will be put in place to make the rest days compulsory. I suggest, for a start, rest days be granted only on a bi-weekly basis - two days off a month. This would allow hard-pressed employers, especially those with young children and old folks, to adjust or look for other help.
Penalise maid, not employer
- TODAY, 24 June 2011
I grant my maid the day off whenever she requests to go out. I also give her light duties on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays so these are her rest days at home.
My previous maid would go out to meet her Bangladeshi boyfriend when my family members were out. I was oblivious of this until my neighbour informed me. Before that, we had believed her when she said she went out to run errands for our household.
I urge the authorities to review the S$5,000 security bond, when legislating the requirement to give maids a day off a week.
It is unfair to penalise employers for a maid's misbehaviour not initiated by the employer as it is very difficult to ensure our maids do not engage in forbidden activities. The authorities should instead impose a penalty on maids for their misbehaviour.
The maid's employer could withhold a sum of, say, S$500 to be used to pay the authorities should the maid violate the Manpower Ministry's rules. Maids have no qualms about breaking rules here as there is no financial penalty on them. But if the onus were put on them, this would reduce the social problems caused by maids.
Maids deserve time off too
- TODAY, 21 June 2011
I welcome the statement by Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob that we should consider legislation entitling maids to a day off every week.
Many employers have cited concerns about negative external influences and resultant bad behaviour as well as them depending on maids too much to afford more days off.
On the first concern, we do need to recognise that much of the employer's reluctance to give maids days off stems from Ministry of Manpower policies that place the burden of responsibility on the employer should the maid, for example, get pregnant or run away.
This is something the ministry should review, if it is committed to higher labour standards and protecting more vulnerable workers. Employers, like those in many industries, should not be held responsible for an employee's activities outside of designated work hours.
Domestic helpers provide a service for which they are paid for and, for many families who struggle to manage their household responsibilities, such services are necessary but costly. At the same time, there must be a balance between getting our money's worth and recognising that domestic workers are human beings, not commodities that exist solely to make our lives more convenient.
Mdm Halimah also suggested that, in the case that a weekly day off is not feasible, they could be financially compensated in lieu. I think this is a fair option which gives flexibility to employers, while recognising the right of the individual to have time off work.
There are always individuals who will take advantage of the employer but this is not unique in any industry and it is not a reason to pre-emptively punish the entire community by denying them basic human rights - a few days out of the house or the opportunity to build human relationships outside of work.
There are employers who do treat their helpers with respect and have worked out mutually satisfactory arrangements for both parties with time off or compensation, without needing any legislation enforcing such.
Enforcing one day off a week simply ensures that employers who would otherwise not ensure their maids have sufficient rest from work are legally obliged to do so. Such legislation simply protects a vulnerable group of individuals who often suffer in silence. When considering whether domestic workers should get more than one day off a month, think about how much time off work we would find acceptable?
The answer is obvious. Most of us would consider even one day off a week outrageous. Why then do we have double standards when it comes to domestic helpers? Are some people more worthy of basic rights than others?