Isolated cases? There's more than one a week
June 30, 2007
OF MAIDS AND OTHER FOREIGN WORKERS
Maids in Singapore not spared ill treatment MR JOHN McBeth writes a good expose of the appalling treatment of Indonesian maids working overseas ('A problem that's cast aside'; ST, June 25). However, I wonder why Singapore completely escaped his attention.
Since I came to live in Singapore almost a year ago, I have been surprised and shocked at the number of reported instances of maids dying or suffering serious injury as a result of falling from windows, and cases of serious maid abuse, including beatings and starvation.
The Singapore Government is 'baffled' by the latest US Human Trafficking Report rating, which downgrades Singapore from Tier 1 to Tier 2. I am not.
One of the things singled out in the report is the treatment of domestic servants who are 'subjected to exploitation and unacceptable working conditions' in Singapore. The report states that a small number of foreign maids face seriously abusive labour conditions that amount to involuntary servitude. Well, a small number is too many for a country that claims to be 'First World'.
The Government may be putting some laws in place to try to improve this, but results are what count. All the legislation in the world would not necessarily prevent abuse. The punishment meted out to the perpetrators is minimal.
ST reported, after a recent incident of yet another maid falling from a window, that an employer who knowingly puts a maid in danger or lets a maid put herself in harm's way can be jailed for up to three months, fined up to $250, and be barred from hiring maids. Is that all the value we place on the life of a maid? No wonder there have been more than 100 workplace maid deaths over the past seven years.
While not suggesting that abuse is as widespread or extreme here as in Malaysia or Saudi Arabia (both on the bottom Tier 3 list of the Human Trafficking Report), surely it should not be ignored by Mr McBeth in an article in The Straits Times.
Geoff Milne
July 3, 2007
Maid abuse isolated cases; don't knock S'pore
I REFER to Mr Geoff Milne's letter, 'Maids in Singapore not spared
ill treatment' (ST, June 30).
If it be Mr Milne's intention to exhort Singaporeans to be more
humane and compassionate towards mankind in general and maids
in particular, kudos and plaudits to him for I share this sentiment.
If it be his intention to misrepresent the isolated cases of maid
abuse in Singapore as a disease of the national psyche and a
malady of society, perhaps he should be reminded that maid abuse
here is perpetuated by only a perverse few and is definitely not
prevalent, or at least not more than in any other First World country.
We do not need writer John McBeth to remind us of the villainy of
maid abuse. Every time it happens, the public media amply fulfils its
societal obligations by exposing it to the hilt, thereby subjecting
the offenders to public pillory before judicial retribution.
Such exposure and over-representation in the media serve as news
as much as object lessons for employers and do not represent an
epidemic of maid abuse on our island.
Yes, even one case of maid abuse or any form of iniquity
perpetuated by one human being on another is one too many.
Be it minor misdemeanour or major felony, Singaporean society
and jurisprudence let it all hang out in public to air.
Just because we are honest and forthright in our dealings with
disturbing social mores and contentious issues, we have lent
ourselves to Mr Milne's indulgent proselytising.
Dr Yik Keng Yeong
July 9th, ST Forum
Dr Yik Keng Yeong evidently considers that the remarks made by Mr Geoffrey Milne in his letter and by your correspondent, John McBeth (Maid abuse isolated cases; don't knock Singapore, Forum, 3/7/'07) are overly critical of Singaporeans' treatment of foreign domestic workers. Working with hundreds of Singaporeans who take a strong stand against all forms of 'maid abuse', TWC2 can sympathise with Dr Yik in resisting generalised criticisms, but his own comments tend to play
down problems that really do exist.
If only cases of abuse against domestic workers were 'isolated', as he says. In 2004 (the latest year for which full statistics are available), the Ministry of Manpower recorded 59 'maid abuse' cases - more than one a week. This was a minimum. The number of calls to helplines like TWC2's, HOME's or ACMI's by desperate women or individuals (Singaporeans as well as fellow nationals) concerned for them underlines the continuing gravity of the problem, as does the
number of women workers claiming abuse who seek refuge in shelters.
Sadly, Dr Yik's statement that the level of abuse here is 'at least not more (prevalent) than in any other First World country' is factually incorrect. Cases of physical abuse of domestic workers are relatively few in other First World countries, even allowing for very different scales of domestic worker employment. Rarely does a worker claim abuse, or seek refuge at a shelter.
In response to all three writers, we can say that part of the problem in Singapore is social. Many cases involve women under heavy pressure to earn money and manage their family households. They take out their stress on their domestic workers.
Another reason for the difference between Singapore and other First World countries is that in the latter, certain legal protections are more far-reaching. There are normally strict upper limits on working hours and, crucially, clearly defined rights to time off, which is the workers' own. These are effective in curbing the danger of abuse, since workers can escape it without great difficulty. In Singapore,
over half domestic workers have no day off. Prevented from leaving their employers' homes unaccompanied throughout their stay, how can they make use of the existing protective regulations?
There is cause for optimism. Little by little, the government strengthens protective measures and public attitudes become more considerate towards foreign domestic workers, but there is still much to be done.
Yours faithfully,
John Gee
President
Transient Workers Count Too
July 16, 2007
Doc has seen few signs of maid abuse in 20 yrs
THE president of Transient Workers Count Too, Mr John Gee, has contributed objectively to the discussion on the prevalence of maid abuse in
While I cannot quote any quantitative data to support my view that maid abuse is not prevalent in
As suggested by the Ministry of Health, I solicit information from the maids regarding their general state of being, health, and working conditions and actively look for signs of physical abuse when maids present themselves for their half-yearly check-up.
In my practice, the commonest complaints by maids are cramped living quarters, naggy employers and the exploitative loans they must take up when they come to
Sometimes, maids complain about being called 'stupid' and other derogatory terms, or being confined to their flat for the day while their employers are at work, or that they do not get days off (or enough days off), or that a 15-hour working day is exhausting.
I am not sure these complaints constitute maid abuse. Indeed, some contractual terms of employment, as noted by Mr Gee, are invidious and may need rectification, but to date neither I nor my circle of doctor friends has noted the prominent prevalence of egregious acts against maids like physical violence, sexual predation, mental torture and forcible use of maids under hazardous conditions.
The inference is that doctors are a poor choice as first-line guardians of maids' well-being if maid abuse, as defined by a moral and legal need to intervene, is really prevalent. Perhaps other doctors would like to share their experience.
We have about 150,000 foreign domestic maids and about 7,000 doctors in
Those who take maid welfare to heart should visit http://www.siiaonline.org/foreign_domestic_workers, a webpage set up by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, which expatiates on this problem discursively.
Dr Yik Keng Yeong
July 21, 2007
When Transient Workers Count Too was founded, we recognised that only a small minority of employers inflicted physical violence on their maids. We identified other problems, including those reported to Dr Yik (long hours, no day off, derogatory remarks), as being far more widespread, and concentrated most of our energies on these neglected issues.
Doctors can definitely help to discourage and counter physical abuse. Our forerunner group, The Working Committee 2, raised the issue in 2003, after the Muawanatul Chasanah murder trial. She had worked for the family for 16 months, and the court heard that she had been physically abused for nine months, causing her over 200 injuries and a drop in weight from 50kg to 36kg. We asked how a doctor carrying out a six-monthly check-up could have failed to notice that something was wrong. We pointed out that the medical check-up could provide a counter to abuse such as violence and underfeeding. We urged that doctors be told that they had a duty to look for signs of abuse and report them. The Ministry of Health sent out a letter to this effect.
Yet doctors may see few cases. Some abusive employers behave badly from day one; others start abusing their workers during a moment of family crisis. If these workers run away or their mistreatment is reported before their first or next six-monthly health check, they will not be seen by the usual doctor.
Helplines such as TWC2's are more likely to hear of their experiences.
Physical-abuse statistics from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), such as the 59 I cited for 2004, are a minimum. Some workers don't report abuse, for fear of joblessness or further abuse; some are denied contact with potential helpers - their employers even have them escorted to their point of departure when they leave to try to stop them from complaining to the authorities about abuse or non-payment of salaries.
Tackling abuse has to be done from many directions. Doctors, helplines, responsible employment agencies and MOM can work to stamp it out. Most effective would be a weekly day off, established by law, and a concerned public, which is steadily emerging.
John Gee
President
Transient Workers Count Too
July 23, 2007
I worked for a maid agency for two years in the past. During those days, I encountered complaints against maids from employers every day. They ranged from telling lies, refusing to take instructions, being lazy, using the employer's phone without permission, to serious matters like stealing, bringing in strangers without permission and sneaking out of the house in the middle of night.
Some maids steal household items stocked at home and sell to sundry shops nearby. Some sneak out to do prostitution at weekday nights and sleep during the day, frustrating employers. Some work as hostesses on Sundays and rest on Mondays.
In my agency, we made it a point to hand over our 24-hour hotline number so that they can call us when they are in trouble. Most of the calls were about nagging employers. There were few complaints about heavy workload. We did not receive any complaints about physical abuse. There was just one case of a male employer trying to seduce the maid. We transferred the maid amicably.
I have been employing maids for 14 years. I treat them with dignity and respect, taking care of their needs more than the law specifies. They work happily in my house initially. But when they have friends, they change. They are on the phone or writing letters most of time, and refuse to attend to children and the old mother when they call. They learn to talk back, tell lies and find short cuts to do work as time passes. This made me change maids every two years.
When I face such problems with my maids, I share them with my family members, and one or some of us explain to them why they are not supposed to do such things, and tell them to correct their behaviour. I imagine how it is if one family member must take all the burden of dealing with maids without adequate knowledge, skill and time in doing so.
And worse still, if agents fail to help. Out of frustration, employers may become abusive.
We need to come up with a system in dealing with present maids problems. First, more has to be done to educate and help employers. Many employers do not know how to deal with problems with maids appropriately.
Employers are busy people and may not have time to sit down and read the booklet from MOM. The only time they may sit down is when they choose maids at the agency's office.
Therefore, equipping agencies with legal knowledge and communication skills, and making them educate the employers may be one way. Or, just as maids sit for tests before getting their work permit, employers may be made to sit for tests on ethics, responsibilities, law, communication skill, et cetera.
As for the maids, they need to receive more training in work skills and work attitudes. Language skill is also important. We see more Indonesian maids than Filipino maids being abused. One reason is the lack of communication skills.
All complaints from both employers and maids, however small, should be reported to MOM. The ministry may set up a page on its website for employers and agency to write in about their woes with maids.
Maids can use the telephone number given to them. And a committee may review all the cases once a month, and provide feedback to MOM,
Angie Kiyomi Nishi (Mdm)