Maid woes again

July 9, 2008
New rules may prompt abuse by maids
AFTER I received notice of the new work permit conditions set by the Ministry of Manpower, I called the ministry contact centre and asked: 'Who bears the repatriation cost of those maids who, a few months into their employment, decide to return home for personal reasons?' I needed to seek an answer in the light of an unpleasant experience with a maid who insisted on leaving to sort out some family matters. I was told the employer has to bear the cost. This appeared to be an unreasonable imposition on employers. Why should they, through no fault of their own, be burdened with this additional cost of paying return airfares of maids before they complete their employment contract? Will this not encourage them to abuse the system and seek the slightest excuse to return to their country of origin, knowing they will not be penalised in any way? I am all for extending due protection to maids who come to Singapore to earn a living, but due consideration should also be given to employers. I appeal to the authorities to reconsider this rule so employers who are already burdened with employment-related costs, such as high recruitment fees, levy, security bond and medical costs, are not made to bear this additional cost. Padmini Kesavapany (Mrs)

July 9, 2008
Wrong to suggest that employers profiteer from maids
I AM writing in response to the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) latest work-permit guidelines to prevent employers profiteering from employment of maids. It is timely that maids are now protected by law. Employers who breach the new conditions, such as recovering payment made for repatriation or health insurance, or deducting pay from maids, are now punishable by law. This is a right step in our national quest for equal human rights for employers and employees. However, it is inaccurate for MOM to suggest that employers who flout the law in this way profiteer from employment of maids. First, there is no profit to be made when actual cost is deducted or recovered from the maid. Second, there is no profit to be made when maids are employed because their primary purpose is to enable a Singaporean mother to return to the workforce, leaving her vulnerable children in the maid's care. Third, when household items are stolen or damaged by maids, employers bear the full cost of replacement. Lastly, when employers put their children or elderly folk at risk in the hands of maids in order to return to the workforce to earn a living to support their family, what protection do they have? In fact, as a working mother of two toddlers, I have lost a great deal in terms of bonding time with my children, and risking my children and property as the maid is left at home alone with them. My maid is paid her wages promptly, and she gets a monthly bonus to maintain work standards. The truth of the matter is, it is the maids who profit from employers: They are paid handsomely in addition to enjoying good food and lodging. Now, the new rules may help them to profiteer as well. Ng Shien (Mrs)