2006 June
Editorial
In this newsletter, we comment briefly on the facts of the death of Jane Parangan La Puebla at the hands of her friend, Guen Garlejo Aguilar. We set the record straight about the circumstances in which that happened.
When the news broke last September, TWC2 was approached by several journalists for comment. We were very aware of the stories that gained a wide popular circulation at the time: not only that these two women had fought over a boyfriend, but that Filipina domestic workers in general got into 'loose behaviour' once they were allowed out of their workplace.
We could have responded, quite factually, that the great majority of the workers spend their time meeting their friends, talking, and having something to eat together; we could also have mentioned the many who go to church and take part in church-related activities or who attend training and educational courses. But if we had said these things, and only them, we'd have been making a big mistake. We would have been implying that a day off is a privilege, a reward given for 'good behaviour' not a right: we'd have been saying that most Filipina domestic workers are 'good women', and so should have a day off, and that would carry the suggestion that there were 'bad women' who shouldn't have time off, for their own moral wellbeing.
We did not go down that path. We remained clear on the basic principles: that everyone should be able to have a regular day off as of right; that it should not be within the power of employers to deny that and to keep domestic workers confined to their homes. Furthermore, we maintained that, as the women are adults, it is up to them to decide what they do in their time off, not anyone else - providing that it is legal. The employer of a domestic worker has no more right to rule on whether she can see a boyfriend on a day off than, for example, the manager of a bank or a supermarket has the right to regulate the private lives of their employees.
The revelation of the true facts of the case confirms that we were right to stick to what we knew and what we believed to be basic principles when it might have been easier to have yielded to the atmosphere of the time, which, as it turns out, had a lot more to do with prejudices and stereotypes than it did with real Filipina domestic workers.
In this newsletter, we comment briefly on the facts of the death of Jane Parangan La Puebla at the hands of her friend, Guen Garlejo Aguilar. We set the record straight about the circumstances in which that happened.
When the news broke last September, TWC2 was approached by several journalists for comment. We were very aware of the stories that gained a wide popular circulation at the time: not only that these two women had fought over a boyfriend, but that Filipina domestic workers in general got into 'loose behaviour' once they were allowed out of their workplace.
We could have responded, quite factually, that the great majority of the workers spend their time meeting their friends, talking, and having something to eat together; we could also have mentioned the many who go to church and take part in church-related activities or who attend training and educational courses. But if we had said these things, and only them, we'd have been making a big mistake. We would have been implying that a day off is a privilege, a reward given for 'good behaviour' not a right: we'd have been saying that most Filipina domestic workers are 'good women', and so should have a day off, and that would carry the suggestion that there were 'bad women' who shouldn't have time off, for their own moral wellbeing.
We did not go down that path. We remained clear on the basic principles: that everyone should be able to have a regular day off as of right; that it should not be within the power of employers to deny that and to keep domestic workers confined to their homes. Furthermore, we maintained that, as the women are adults, it is up to them to decide what they do in their time off, not anyone else - providing that it is legal. The employer of a domestic worker has no more right to rule on whether she can see a boyfriend on a day off than, for example, the manager of a bank or a supermarket has the right to regulate the private lives of their employees.
The revelation of the true facts of the case confirms that we were right to stick to what we knew and what we believed to be basic principles when it might have been easier to have yielded to the atmosphere of the time, which, as it turns out, had a lot more to do with prejudices and stereotypes than it did with real Filipina domestic workers.
Lost Bonds Down
Last year, only 0.04 per cent of the employers of the estimated 160,000 domestic maids here forfeited their $5000 deposits. That works out to 64 employers, as opposed to 96 in 2003 and 125 in 2001.
So reported Arti Mulchand in 'The Straits Times' ('Fewer losing bonds for maids', 10th April 2006), citing figures supplied by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). She notes that many employers refer to their fear of having to part with the security bond as a reason for not giving their domestic workers a day off, but writes:
Still, the falling number of forfeited bonds does indicate that the odds of a maid running away is lower than most people think. The risk of losing the bond should therefore not be used as a reason to deny the maid a day off, an MOM spokesman said.
TWC2 considers that a regular day off is a basic right. No domestic worker should be denied time off and the right to leave her workplace because of an employer's worries about the bond. We consider that, when a good relationship exists between the employer and worker, there will be very little reason to think that the worker would abscond. Nevertheless, we accept that worries about the bond issue are real and as such, are one obstacle to the acceptance of a regular day off for domestic workers.
'Mutual Respect', a TWC2 booklet for employers, offers useful advice on this issue (See pages 20-21).
Fines for Sub-standard Accommodation
In the year leading up to April 2006, the MOM fined 13 employers for housing their male foreign workers in sub-standard accommodation. They were fined at a rate of $200 per worker and were all repeat offenders. Of 766 employers whose premises were checked, 506 received warnings.
This was the first time that employers had been fined for this offence; during the previous year, 105 employers were given warnings. The rules on off-site accommodation had only just been introduced then, in June 2004. ('Fined for sub-standard workers' quarters', Teh Joo Lin, 'Straits Times', 8th June 2006)
The conditions discovered by inspectors from MOM, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and National Environment Agency (NEA) are hidden from the eyes of the great majority of Singaporeans, but occasionally in the past, we were given a glimpse of this world of over-crowded, ill-ventilated and insanitary conditions. Much greater attention was drawn to them when 300 Indian and Bangladeshi workers went on strike on 29th-30th March 2005.
Employed by Ta-Ching Marine Technology, they had been moved from their original accommodation in Kaki Bukit and Lavender to the GoldStrong Dormitory in Tuas. They were very discontented with their new quarters.
A complaint about conditions there resulted in inspectors coming on 22nd March to view the dormitories, which occupied the top three stories of an office and light industrial building, but before further official action could take place, the workers struck, refusing to go into work unless they were assured that something should be done to meet their grievances. They told Sim Chi Yin, of 'The New Paper' that the common areas in the dormitory were filthy and that the premises were unsafe: there was only one way in or out, via a staircase on the fourth floor - a safety hazard as well as an inconvenience. Sim reported:
When The New Paper visited the dormitory on Wednesday morning, we were taken around a maze of cubicles fenced off with wire mesh and crude cement walls.
Each cubicle, which holds six to 12 workers, is about twice the size of what The New Paper understands is a typical prison cell for one person.
They have triple-decker beds, which some men say are not big enough for them to even sit up on.
The windows were covered with wire mesh.
There were heaps of rubbish in some corners of the corridors and uncovered dustbins were overflowing with food waste.
Even in the well-ventilated dormitory - each cubicle has two ceiling fans - there was a bitter smell.
There were also puddles of water on the ground near the windows, and the toilets were filthy.
Some Ta-Ching workers said they haven't been able to sleep well because of the light and noise coming in through the wire mesh 'walls' of the cubicle.
(It's a HELL HOLE... and we're sick of living like animals, say striking foreign workers, Sim Chi Yin, 'The New Paper', 2nd April 2005)
The final straw for the workers was when water leaked in after a downpour.
Yeo Guat Kwang, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, attempted to gain entry to the dormitory on April 20th, but was turned away by the GoldStrong managers. The inspectors, meanwhile, had upheld some of the workers' complaints. The dormitory was later fined $1000 and told to close.
'Body Parts' Case: Fatal Quarrel Over Debt
On 29th May, Guen Garlejo Aguilar was sentenced to ten years in prison for killing Jane Parangan La Puebla. The charge of murder, which would have carried a mandatory death sentence, was reduced to one of manslaughter after the court accepted that Aguilar was 'mentally unsound' at the time of the crime.
Aguilar was arrested last September after killing La Puebla and dismembering her body: her attempt to disperse the remains resulted in them being discovered quickly. The events leading up to the killing only came to public attention during the trial.
The two domestic workers had been good friends. La Puebla had asked Aguilar to lend her money to send home. Aguilar agreed, lending her $1000 of her own money and borrowing a further $1000 from a friend of hers. It was only later that she discovered that the friend had obtained the money from a loanshark who charged 20 per cent interest a month.
Pursued by the loansharks, Aguilar became increasingly worried and kept asking La Puebla to repay her the money she had borrowed, but La Puebla tried to avoid the issue. On September 7th, she went to meet Aguilar at the condominium where she lived. Aguilar twice suggested that she should sell her video and digital cameras to obtain money to pay back the loan, but then they began to argue, and it was during the ensuing violent quarrel that Aguilar strangled La Puebla. (The case was reported in all the Singapore press; the most detailed account was provided by Teo Xuanwei, 'Today', 29th May 2005)
The facts of the case were significantly at odds with the stories that circulated immediately after Aguilar's arrest. The most widespread was that the two married women had fought over a boyfriend. This led to the circulation of sensationalist tales that cast aspersions on Filipina domestic workers in general, with lurid accounts of workers using their day off to work as prostitutes, have sex and get drunk. Employers who say that they need to prevent their domestic workers from going out because they might 'fall into bad company' pointed to these reports as justification for their claims.
What has emerged from the trial is a tragic story of two friends brought into conflict because both of them lacked money. It was Aguilar’s generosity (a praiseworthy quality in itself) in trying to helpful her fellow domestic worker and her vulnerability once she owed money that ultimately that led to the fatal quarrel, not rivalry over a man.
TWC2 would like to commend the Philippines Embassy staff and in particular Her Excellency, Ambassador Belen Fule-Anota for giving their best support to both families and to Madam Aguilar.
Last year, only 0.04 per cent of the employers of the estimated 160,000 domestic maids here forfeited their $5000 deposits. That works out to 64 employers, as opposed to 96 in 2003 and 125 in 2001.
So reported Arti Mulchand in 'The Straits Times' ('Fewer losing bonds for maids', 10th April 2006), citing figures supplied by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). She notes that many employers refer to their fear of having to part with the security bond as a reason for not giving their domestic workers a day off, but writes:
Still, the falling number of forfeited bonds does indicate that the odds of a maid running away is lower than most people think. The risk of losing the bond should therefore not be used as a reason to deny the maid a day off, an MOM spokesman said.
TWC2 considers that a regular day off is a basic right. No domestic worker should be denied time off and the right to leave her workplace because of an employer's worries about the bond. We consider that, when a good relationship exists between the employer and worker, there will be very little reason to think that the worker would abscond. Nevertheless, we accept that worries about the bond issue are real and as such, are one obstacle to the acceptance of a regular day off for domestic workers.
'Mutual Respect', a TWC2 booklet for employers, offers useful advice on this issue (See pages 20-21).
Fines for Sub-standard Accommodation
In the year leading up to April 2006, the MOM fined 13 employers for housing their male foreign workers in sub-standard accommodation. They were fined at a rate of $200 per worker and were all repeat offenders. Of 766 employers whose premises were checked, 506 received warnings.
This was the first time that employers had been fined for this offence; during the previous year, 105 employers were given warnings. The rules on off-site accommodation had only just been introduced then, in June 2004. ('Fined for sub-standard workers' quarters', Teh Joo Lin, 'Straits Times', 8th June 2006)
The conditions discovered by inspectors from MOM, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and National Environment Agency (NEA) are hidden from the eyes of the great majority of Singaporeans, but occasionally in the past, we were given a glimpse of this world of over-crowded, ill-ventilated and insanitary conditions. Much greater attention was drawn to them when 300 Indian and Bangladeshi workers went on strike on 29th-30th March 2005.
Employed by Ta-Ching Marine Technology, they had been moved from their original accommodation in Kaki Bukit and Lavender to the GoldStrong Dormitory in Tuas. They were very discontented with their new quarters.
A complaint about conditions there resulted in inspectors coming on 22nd March to view the dormitories, which occupied the top three stories of an office and light industrial building, but before further official action could take place, the workers struck, refusing to go into work unless they were assured that something should be done to meet their grievances. They told Sim Chi Yin, of 'The New Paper' that the common areas in the dormitory were filthy and that the premises were unsafe: there was only one way in or out, via a staircase on the fourth floor - a safety hazard as well as an inconvenience. Sim reported:
When The New Paper visited the dormitory on Wednesday morning, we were taken around a maze of cubicles fenced off with wire mesh and crude cement walls.
Each cubicle, which holds six to 12 workers, is about twice the size of what The New Paper understands is a typical prison cell for one person.
They have triple-decker beds, which some men say are not big enough for them to even sit up on.
The windows were covered with wire mesh.
There were heaps of rubbish in some corners of the corridors and uncovered dustbins were overflowing with food waste.
Even in the well-ventilated dormitory - each cubicle has two ceiling fans - there was a bitter smell.
There were also puddles of water on the ground near the windows, and the toilets were filthy.
Some Ta-Ching workers said they haven't been able to sleep well because of the light and noise coming in through the wire mesh 'walls' of the cubicle.
(It's a HELL HOLE... and we're sick of living like animals, say striking foreign workers, Sim Chi Yin, 'The New Paper', 2nd April 2005)
The final straw for the workers was when water leaked in after a downpour.
Yeo Guat Kwang, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, attempted to gain entry to the dormitory on April 20th, but was turned away by the GoldStrong managers. The inspectors, meanwhile, had upheld some of the workers' complaints. The dormitory was later fined $1000 and told to close.
'Body Parts' Case: Fatal Quarrel Over Debt
On 29th May, Guen Garlejo Aguilar was sentenced to ten years in prison for killing Jane Parangan La Puebla. The charge of murder, which would have carried a mandatory death sentence, was reduced to one of manslaughter after the court accepted that Aguilar was 'mentally unsound' at the time of the crime.
Aguilar was arrested last September after killing La Puebla and dismembering her body: her attempt to disperse the remains resulted in them being discovered quickly. The events leading up to the killing only came to public attention during the trial.
The two domestic workers had been good friends. La Puebla had asked Aguilar to lend her money to send home. Aguilar agreed, lending her $1000 of her own money and borrowing a further $1000 from a friend of hers. It was only later that she discovered that the friend had obtained the money from a loanshark who charged 20 per cent interest a month.
Pursued by the loansharks, Aguilar became increasingly worried and kept asking La Puebla to repay her the money she had borrowed, but La Puebla tried to avoid the issue. On September 7th, she went to meet Aguilar at the condominium where she lived. Aguilar twice suggested that she should sell her video and digital cameras to obtain money to pay back the loan, but then they began to argue, and it was during the ensuing violent quarrel that Aguilar strangled La Puebla. (The case was reported in all the Singapore press; the most detailed account was provided by Teo Xuanwei, 'Today', 29th May 2005)
The facts of the case were significantly at odds with the stories that circulated immediately after Aguilar's arrest. The most widespread was that the two married women had fought over a boyfriend. This led to the circulation of sensationalist tales that cast aspersions on Filipina domestic workers in general, with lurid accounts of workers using their day off to work as prostitutes, have sex and get drunk. Employers who say that they need to prevent their domestic workers from going out because they might 'fall into bad company' pointed to these reports as justification for their claims.
What has emerged from the trial is a tragic story of two friends brought into conflict because both of them lacked money. It was Aguilar’s generosity (a praiseworthy quality in itself) in trying to helpful her fellow domestic worker and her vulnerability once she owed money that ultimately that led to the fatal quarrel, not rivalry over a man.
TWC2 would like to commend the Philippines Embassy staff and in particular Her Excellency, Ambassador Belen Fule-Anota for giving their best support to both families and to Madam Aguilar.