Laws should ensure fair contractual rights, costs aren't dumped on FDWs

This letter was published in TODAY on 22 September 2006.

I refer to your report “Our maids deserve fair play, fair pay” (Sept 19).

The issue of heavy debt loans and fair labour practices has to be tackled at all levels. We agree with the recommendations of Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) that placement fees for foreign domestic workers should be capped and urge the Singapore Government to forge agreements with the governments of sending countries to protect the rights of migrant workers.

The Ministry of Manpower and the accrediting bodies should not license agencies that overcharge and insist on exploitative practices. Employers, on their part, should be wiling to take on a more proportionate share of the cost.

Effective regulations to ensure this do not exist in Singapore. For example, the Employment Agencies Act states that workers should not pay more than 10 per cent of their monthly salaries to the employment agencies (EA) as a commission.

But many EAs, in their bid to cover costs, have no choice but to disguise their placement fees as “loans” because of 10 per cent of a foreign domestic worker’s (FDW) salary in Singapore is obviously too low for a business to remain viable. And since FDWs have little bargaining power, these “loans” are invariably shifted on to them.

MOM, together with the relevant stakeholders, have to make provisions to reflect the realities of the FDW industry here and implement rules to ensure that employers share the burden of the of the costs, rather than leaving it disproportionately for the FDW to shoulder.

It is also worth noting that even though FDWs should be viewed as employment agency’s customers, there has been no measures to implement a contractual relationship between these two parties.

While contracts exists between an employer and an agency, none exist between the agency and the FDW - despite the fact that many FDWs are paying more in placement fees. Even though standard contracts have been drawn up by the respective sending countries to protect their nationals, these are not enforceable in Singapore because no memorandum of understanding exists between our government and the governments of these countries.

Access to justice is also impeded by the fact that a worker who wishes to claim for contractual breaches will require costly legal representation when mediation fails.

Moreover, an employer can choose to cancel the domestic worker’s work permit and repatriate her, leaving her with little time and opportunity to pursue her claim.

While the Government and the accreditation bodies have made laudable steps to regularise the working conditions of our migrant workers, a lot more has been done to ensure fair and ethical standards in the industry.