Response to the Zoe and Liang show episode titled "Do people worry less with domestic help?"

A recent episode of The Zoe and Liang Show titled “Do people worry less with domestic help?”, discussed many facets of the living and working relationship between employers and migrant domestic workers (MDWs). We set out some of our observations and responses to the show. 

Dressing and appearance of MDWs

One of the hosts mentioned that she disallows spaghetti straps worn by her MDW in her home and spoke to her MDW when she noticed that her shorts that she wore in the house were getting shorter. She cited her concern that her household mostly consisted of men. 

We all wish to feel comfortable within our own homes, and every household comes with its own set of house rules that everyone is to abide by. Thus, reasonable rules imposed by employers about dressing, hygiene and etiquette are understandable. However, these rules should not be imposed beyond the confines of the employers' homes. HOME encounters employers who control their MDWs’ appearance and actions even outside the house, by controlling their dressing, restricting their use of makeup and who they interact and communicate with on their phones and via social media. 

There are already laws which restrict and control the bodies and social movements of MDWs. It is illegal for them to be pregnant, marry a local resident without seeking permission, or to take part in "immoral or undesirable activities". Employers should not impose additional restrictions on MDWs, who already face heavy policing as to their appearance and behaviours. 

Personal lives of MDWs

We appreciate how the guest speaker mentioned that MDWs are entitled to their personal privacy and lives which they need not share with their employers. 

We agree that an MDW remains an employee within the confines of an employer’s house. 

It is oft-spoken that employers wish to treat their domestic workers as “family”. While this notion is borne out of the live-in nature of domestic work, and the employer’s wish to maintain a close relationship of care with their MDWs, it might cause MDWs to endure exploitation or abuse because they feel complicated ties towards their employers and their families, and cultivate a misplaced sense of loyalty which employers may exploit, given that certain liberties may be taken with family members that are unacceptable vis-a-vis colleagues or employees in a professional setting. 

Rather, MDWs should be allowed to see themselves as employees within their employers’ homes, and treat it as a workplace. They should thus be left to lead their own private lives, which employers should not interfere in. Employers should be mindful of this boundary and not expect their MDW to share aspects of their personal lives and activities with them. 

Standards set by employers 

The guest speaker also mentioned that she does not wish to hire an MDW as her standards for cleanliness and hygiene are very high, and she does not wish to impose such standards on an MDW to follow. 

We are glad that she has articulated this. As in any workplace, employers should not have unreasonable expectations of their MDWs. HOME often encounters MDWs who are berated for not meeting seemingly impossible standards set by their employers. Often, these MDWs tell us that they are expected to be “perfect” in every aspect of their work, which adds to their stress and affects their mental well-being. 

Recommendations 

We appreciate the discussions in the show around how the working relationship between employers and MDWs can be improved. However, the success on such relationships are not (and should not be) dependent on individual employers’ behaviours alone - there are systemic improvements that can be made to ensure the well-being of MDWs, such as:

A live out option for MDWs to professionalise the domestic work sector and to separate MDWs’ personal lives from their employers. 

• Remove broad restrictions that police migrant worker behaviour, such as the prohibition against “immoral and undesirable activities” found in the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. 

• Abolish the security bond which places an undue financial burden on employers of MDWs to ensure they “control and supervise” their foreign employees. This responsibility heightens employers’ anxieties about the movements and activities of MDWs and incentives stringent control measures. 

Photo: meWATCH

Chinese translation

最近在新传媒播出的一集名为 ” 家有帮佣烦恼少？？！！“ 的《惠眼说亮话》节目中讨论了雇主与外籍女佣之间的生活与工作的方方面面。我们希望对节目中所讨论的话题进行回应，并且为现实问题提出一些建议。

外籍女佣的穿着打扮

其中一位主持人提到她不允许她的外籍女佣在家里穿细肩带，而当她注意到外籍女佣在家里穿的短裤越来越短时，她和女佣谈了谈她对穿着的规定。 她提到她忧虑是来自于她家庭主要是由男性组成。

虽然每个人都希望在自己的家中感到舒适，但自然的每个家庭都有自己的家规。 因此，雇主对外籍女佣的着装、卫生和习惯施加的（合理）规定是可以理解的。 然而，这些规则不应该被施加在雇主家以外的范围。 HOME 所遇到的一些雇主甚至在屋外管制外籍女佣的穿着和行为。他们控制外籍女佣的着装、限制她们使用化妆品甚至她们在手机和社交媒体与谁互动和社交。

如今，新加坡已经有法律限制和控制外籍家政工人的身体和社会活动。 怀孕、未经许可与当地居民结婚或参加“不道德或不良活动”都是违法的。 因此，雇主更不应对外籍女佣施加额外的限制，因为她们的外表和行为已经面临严厉的监管。

外籍女佣在新加坡已经面临严厉的监管。她们已经有法律限制和控制她们的身体和社交活动。所以雇主更不应该对女佣施加额外的限制。 

 外籍女佣的私生活

我们感谢节目嘉宾提到女佣有权享不与雇主分享的个人隐私和生活。

我们认同女佣在雇主家中仍然是雇员。

雇主常常说希望将女佣视为“家人”。 虽然这种观念是出于家务工作的留宿性质，以及雇主希望与女佣保持密切的照顾关系，但这可能导致女佣遭受剥削或虐待。这“家人”观念不但会把女佣与雇主的关系复杂化也可能培养一种错误的忠诚感。并且雇主也可能利用这种忠诚感采取某些在专业环境中不可接受的行为。

相反的，外籍女佣应该将自己视为雇主的雇员，并将雇主家视为工作场所。 因此，她们的私生活不应该被雇主干涉。雇主应该留意这界限，不要期望女佣与他们分享她们私生活的方方面面。

 雇主设定的标准

节目嘉宾还提到，她不希望聘请外籍女佣的一部分原因是因为她对清洁和卫生的标准非常高，因此她不希望将这些标准强加给外籍女佣。

我们很高兴她阐明了这一点。 类似与任何工作场所，雇主不应对其外籍女佣抱有不实际的期望。 HOME 经常遇到外籍女佣因为没有达到雇主设定的不实际的标准而受到斥责。 通常，这些外籍女佣告诉我们，她们被要求在工作上各个方面都达到“完美”标准。 这样的不合理要求不仅增加了她们的压力也影响了她们的心理健康。

建议

我们感谢节目中论述如何改善雇主与外籍女佣之间的工作关系。 然而，这种关系的成功不仅（也不应该）取决于个别雇主的行为和态度。我们应该进行根本性的变化以确保外籍女佣的福祉，例如：

• 提供外籍女佣在外居住的选项。 一方面，这会制造雇主和女佣之间的适当距离感，使女佣私生活中的抉择对于雇主家庭的影响也可降至最低。 另外，并将家务工作专业化。

• 取消对外籍工人行为进行监管的广泛限制，例如《外国劳工雇佣法》中禁止“不良和不道德行为”的规定。

• 废除雇主聘请外籍女佣时所需缴纳的保证金。这保证金给雇主带来的财务负担确保他们“控制和监督”他们的外国雇员。 这种责任增加了雇主对外籍女佣的流动和活动的担忧，并促使采取严格的控制措施