Decent Work Campaign 2022: Domestic Work and Singapore

11 March 2022

Over generations, waged work is no longer seen exclusively as men’s work and as women’s participation in the labour force increases, the idea that housework is women’s work still sticks. This can be seen in a number of ways: for example, in 1978 the Singapore government implemented the Foreign Maids Scheme (FMS), which allowed migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to be hired by families in order to encourage Singaporean women (who were the primary doers of housework) to join the workforce. Further, only women were allowed to be MDWs. Subsequently, however, exceptions made to this rule. Between 2013 to 2018 there were about 50 male MDWs in Singapore. However, the number of male MDWs form only a fraction of the total numbers of MDWs in Singapore.

Ten years after the start of the FMS, the number of MDWs in Singapore reached around 20,000. The number doubled in the next year to reach around 40,000 in 1989. In 1999, there were over 100,000 MDWs in Singapore.  The number has only continued to grow. As at June 2021, there were ​​245,600 women working as MDWs in Singapore. The widespread use of migrant women as domestic workers has created an underclass consisting of these women, who bear our society’s caregiving and housework responsibilities, so much so that when we think of domestic work in Singapore, we automatically think of impoverished migrant women who undertake such work. 

Around the world, domestic work is usually seen as informal labour, which means governments may not attempt to regulate transactions between workers and the employers who hire them. This means that these women are disproportionately vulnerable to exploitation, low wages and poor working conditions in the domestic work sector. While Singapore has made efforts to regulate domestic work in the country,  While Singapore’s government has made efforts to regulate domestic work in the country, they continue to be excluded from the Employment Act (EA) and other key forms of labour protections. This exclusion exists because domestic work is seen to be “quite difficult to regulate”, which perpetuates the idea that domestic work does not require labour protections equal to other forms of work. In particular, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has stated that it is not practical to regulate specific aspects of domestic work  i.e. hours of work, work on a rest day and on public holidays. It would also be difficult to enforce the terms of the EA for domestic workers as: they work in a home environment, the habits of households vary, and it would be hard to compute overtime payments as MDWs’ work/free time are difficult to define and regulate in the same way as employees working in offices or factories. In an interview with Human Rights Watch in 2005, one MOM official stated that “Legislation is not the main route. [Our concern is] if we have legislation and are unable to enforce it.”

How do we dismantle such perceptions of domestic work, and what can be done to ensure better labour protections for domestic workers (i.e. the women who perform such work)? Firstly, we must remove regulations that entrench the gendered nature of domestic work. Currently, Singapore law requires all MDWs to be female. As mentioned before, male MDWs are allowed under rare circumstances. These male MDWs are mostly hired only to take care of the male elderly. These exceptions are extremely rare, female domestic workers outnumbered male domestic workers 240,000+ to ~50. Paid domestic work should not be gendered, and should be undertaken by anyone willing to carry it out in exchange for an income.  

MDWs should also be included in Singapore’s Employment (EA) and Work Injury Compensation Acts (WICA), from which they are currently excluded. According to Human Rights Watch, the lesser protection extended to domestic work reflects discrimination against a form of work usually performed by women and that involves tasks associated with traditional female domestic roles such as cleaning, child care, and cooking. Presently, MDWs’ living and working conditions are governed by the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). The EFMA does not provide as robust and all-encompassing protections as the EA and the WICA do. Moreover, their exclusion from the EA only strengthens the notion that domestic work is not deserving of the rights and protections offered to all other workers. Adding them to the EA and WICA will rectify that. Inclusion in the EA and WICA will accord them the right to, amongst others, overtime pay, working hours and offer compensation for workplace injuries, all of which are necessary, key labour protections for any worker. MDWs’ entitlements under EFMA are vague - ‘acceptable’ accommodation, and ‘adequate’ food and rest, with no further elaboration - allowing for a varied interpretation of the standards and ultimately meaning that the standards of welfare vary from employer to employer. For example, as a result of rest days not being defined as 24 hours under EFMA, HOME has encountered many cases where MDWs are required to work on their rest days; some spending a total of five to six hours cooking, cleaning the house and tending to the employer’s young/elderly family members, before they leave their employers’ houses, or after they return, without any compensation. 

It is often difficult to enforce what occurs in an employer’s house, especially with no existing regulations to protect MDWs’ freedom and privacy. It is necessary, therefore, to fill such regulatory gaps. For example, any curtailment of mobile phone usage for MDWs should be made illegal. MDWs should also not be subject to constant surveillance in their sleeping quarters. As a deterrent, strict punishments should also be put into place for employers who withhold salaries or fail to provide their workers with suitable living conditions. 

Finally, a mandatory skills training program should be provided to MDWs who will be undertaking specialised forms of domestic work, such as eldercare or care for children with special needs. There is a widespread belief that racialized female immigrants (Indonesian, Filipino, Burmese and South Asian women) are better at domestic work and care simply because they come from more conservative societies, therefore preserving their femininity and docility. Within Singapore, a joint 2020 study between HOME and AWARE found that some employers prefer to look for new, inexperienced workers, and prefer certain nationalities over others. In the study, one employer felt that Filipino workers who resided in Singapore for a long time would develop “undesirable habits”, and therefore should not be hired. Experienced workers may often ask for greater agency over their personal time, and habits like maintaining a social life are not considered acceptable. Thus, the employer preferred to hire an inexperienced MDW from Myanmar to care for her elderly parent. Another employer felt that domestic workers caring for elderly family members did not require specific caregiving skills; rather, feminine traits such as patience and being gentle would suffice. It is important to dismantle such stereotypes and understand that caregiving can be both physically and emotionally taxing. By reinforcing the idea that caregiving is skilled work, we can ensure better labour protections for domestic workers. 

In our two-part article (read part one here), we have explored the intersections between gender and domestic work, and how this gendering affects the division of labour inside and outside the home. It is important to note that this has implications that stretch far beyond the sphere of the family - such perceptions may invariably leave domestic workers with less labour and social protections, thus making them particularly vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. We have also offered a number of measures to tackle the devaluation of domestic work and exploitation that domestic workers face. In addition to proposing the large-scale degendering of domestic work, we have also argued for the inclusion of MDWs in the EA and WICA  in order to ensure greater and more robust rights and protections for domestic workers.  We have also noted the importance of ensuring greater freedoms and the protection of privacy for MDWs. Crucially, we have also proposed a skills-based approach to domestic/care work aimed at dismantling stereotypes of inherent docility and femininity as qualities that make good workers. Our suggestions have served as a springboard from which further discussion ought to take place. In no way are our suggestions exhaustive. We invite you to engage with this topic further and to grapple with the points raised in our article. 

Photo: The Pride

Resources:
Yeoh, B.A., Huang, S. & Gonzalez, J. 1999. Migrant Female Domestic Workers: Debating the Economic, Social and Political Impacts in Singapore. International Migration Review, 33(1), pp. 114–136.

Ministry of Manpower. 2022. Written Answer by Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister for Manpower, to Parliamentary Question on Work Permits for Male Foreign Domestic Helpers to Care for Male Elderly Disabled Persons. Available at: https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/parliament-questions-and-replies/2017/0911-written-answer-by-mr-lim-swee-say-minister-for-manpower-to-parliamentary-question-on-work-permit-criteria-for-male-foreign-domestic-helpers. Accessed 14 February 2022.

Ong, A.I. 2019. Hiring of Male Domestic Workers. Available at: https://antheaindiraong.medium.com/hiring-of-male-domestic-workers-98ac20202627. Accessed 07 February 2022.

Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 85 at vol 998 (18 November 2008).

Eugene KB Tan, ‘Managing female foreign domestic workers in Singapore: Economic pragmatism, coercive legal regulation, or human rights?’, Israel Law Review, Volume 43, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 99-125. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4339&context=sol_research. Accessed 19 February 2022. 

Human Rights Watch, ‘Maid to Order: Ending Human Rights Abuses against Migrant Domestic Workers in Singapore”, December 2005, p 74. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/singapore1205wcover.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2022. 

Abu Baker, J. 2014. Plan For More Male Helpers in Singapore Hits Snag. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/plan-for-more-male-helpers-in-singapore-hits-snag. Accessed 07 February 2022.

Human Rights Watch, ‘Maid to Order: Ending Human Rights Abuses against Migrant Domestic Workers in Singapore”, December 2005, p 33. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/singapore1205wcover.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2022. 

AWARE & HOME. 2020. Neither Family Nor Employee: the Caregiver Burden of Migrant Domestic Workers in Singapore. pp. 14. Available at: https://www.home.org.sg/s/AWARE_HOME_MDW-Report-11-Nov.pdf. Accessed 07 February 2022.