In an editorial in the International Herald Tribune, Philip Bowring opines on what he sees as exploitation of foreign workers. I thought this statement was interesting:

Maids are allowed only from specified Asian countries, with the Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka heading the list. Chinese are not on the list, which leads some to allege that only “brown people” or those from non-Confucian societies are to be employed in this most menial job.

IMHO, Mainland Chinese are not on the list because it is the common (mis)perception among Singaporeans that all PRC women come to Singapore to snag local men, married or not. Come to think, there is a law forbidding foreign maids from marrying Singaporeans (they have their work permits terminated, are repatriated, will never, ever get another visa to enter Singapore).

Anyway. I was born and raised in a, I suppose you would call it an upper middle class family. We’ve always had a maid. I’ve never seen anything wrong with that. I reckon that if you come from a poor country and this is the only way out, it’s not exactly the best option but an option nonetheless. What counts is how your employers treat you.

It’s an employer-employee relationship, not a master-indentured servant relationship. Both the employer and employee have rights and obligations.

An employee is entitled to clearly-delineated working hours and days off, their duties are to be outlined in detail and contracts signed. As they are resident in their employer’s home, I believe they have a responsibility to conduct themselves accordingly. I know of one maid who, when they had time to themselves, borrowed their (female) employer’s clothes to go out and solicit. One of my mum’s maids stole her jewellery and fled the country. Clearly not on.

The employer has an obligation to treat the employee as they would any other employee: with respect. If the employee does not work out, they should be free to terminate the employment and the employee seeks work elsewhere. The current situation where the employer pays for all sorts of things may be too inflexible. It may be because the government doesn’t want a large influx of foreign maids coming in and out too freely.

(The pay situation is ridiculously low. Perhaps it’s to discourage job hopping, but I think it encourages the less moral of those to turn to other forms of revenue generation. I don’t know why they are excluded from the Employment Act, perhaps it’s so they are not regarded as employees, which is just plain wrong.)

Perhaps the solution is to treat the hiring of domestic maids similarly to hiring anyone else for a job. Interviews, background checks, maybe some testing. Pay levels would be commensurate with experience and good testimonials from previous employers. As with any job, it’s not a foolproof method of finding a great employee, but it’s not stopped our corporate world.

I think it would prevent those who are just looking for a slave, too, because it involves a contract with legal remedies in the case of breach, thus giving some real rights to the maids. I can understand the argument that the Singapore government wants to cover the lowest common denominator, worst-case scenario when it comes to a foreign worker’s motives and whatnot, but what about the employers? Shouldn’t we be trying to cover that lowest common denominator, too?