Mia's Story
Mia is an MDW who had been working in Singapore for three years. Her employer was elderly and suffered from dementia, and was prone to episodes of memory loss. Mia recalled that during the course of her employment, her employer would sometimes make Mia sign her salary record but forget to make the actual payment of her salary. Additionally, Mia stated that her employer would sometimes forget to do something herself and blame Mia for it. Mia said that her salary was delayed many times,and when she reminded her employer to pay her, she would be scolded and called names such as “stupid”.
A relative of Mia’s employer, who would visit the household, would impress upon Mia the importance of taking care of the employer well, as the latter’s memory was failing her.
One day, Mia’s employer received an SMS from her bank that S$1,500 had been withdrawn from her bank account. Since Mia’s employer did not make the withdrawal, she decided to make a police report. When the police searched Mia’s belongings and found S$1889 in Mia’s possession. She was investigated for stealing money from her employer’s bank account, and was eventually charged with one count of theft.
However, Mia vehemently denied that she had stolen from her employer. HOME helped Mia obtain legal representation, who wrote to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) asking for the charge to be withdrawn and made the following points:
Mia’s position was that the money ($1889) that was found in her possession constituted her savings and salary.
The police uncovered CCTV footage of a woman withdrawing money from an ATM machine from her employer’s bank account, with the assistance of another person. However, the facial features of the person captured in the footage was unclear, and was covered by a mask. Therefore, Mia could not be conclusively identified as being the person captured in the footage.
The clothes worn by the woman in the CCTV footage were not found in Mia’s possession.
Mia denied knowing the other person that was captured in the CCTV footage.
Importantly, Mia’s employer informed the police that at the time she received the message from her bank that the money had been withdrawn from her bank account, Mia was with her at home.
In response, the AGC enquired if Mia would agree to pay a voluntary compensation from the seized amount to her employer, without admitting liability. Mia agreed to pay the compensation amount so that the case could be closed as soon as possible. In exchange, the charge was withdrawn. However, Mia was still administered a stern warning in lieu of prosecution.
Initially, Mia was elated as she did not have to go through the court process and potentially be convicted. However, her joy was short-lived; she found that the stern warning prevented her from continuing employment in Singapore, even though it was issued to her on the basis of non-admission of liability.
In HOME’s report, I’ve Called the Police, we found that 43% of cases which we analysed resulted in stern warnings. This translates to a sizable number of MDWs subject to police investigations who have no chance of re-employment, even though they were not found guilty by a court of law.
HOME believes that workers who have stern warnings should be allowed re-employment. To do so would be in line with principles of fairness and justice.