Don’t rule out live-out maids

by Daniel Yap

THE Indonesian government’s recent announcement that it wants its maids to live separately from their employers, work regular hours, and get public holidays and days off, and even overtime, has got many up in arms. Indonesia is Singapore’s largest source of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) – a supply cut or change in rules would have a significant impact here.

While many have spoken about the cost impact or incongruence of giving FDWs overtime pay, a precedent practice is already in place – enabling FDWs to encash their off-day. Is that not already a form of overtime pay?

What is also missing from the conversation so far is a clear rationale behind why all FDWs must be live-in FDWs. It is illegal to allow an FDW to live outside their workplace. Sure, there are some new responsibilities and risks that come with having a live-out maid, but there are also benefits like family privacy and lower FDW stress (and lower risk of breakdowns).

Perhaps we should not (not right now at least) be talking about giving them Employment Act-like rights as much as giving employers some flexibility within the current framework, in particular the “live-in” rule.

Some FDWs are hired because they are needed on call for any and all emergencies, but others are not so constrained. Some are principal caregivers, others perform assistive roles in caregiving, yet others are only expected to keep house and cook. Given the variety of deployments of FDWs, it stands to reason that there should be more flexibility in the regulations that govern them, especially where their non-working hours are spent.

The trouble is that live-in maids have become an underclass in Singapore. They are not given the employment rights that other workers have. But it is not their exclusion from the Employment Act that makes them an underclass vulnerable to abuse. It is their simultaneous lack of options and the presence of entrapping circumstances that makes them vulnerable. Civil servants, managers, and seamen are also excluded from protection under the Employment Act, yet the former two are not particularly prone to being abused.

A civil servant or manager can be legally compelled to work 80 hours a week for months or years on end. They can, however, opt out of such a situation by finding other employment much more easily. Think you’re being overworked and underappreciated? Quit and move on (shout out to a few of my teacher friends who have done so).  Even a foreigner who is a manager has far fewer encumbrances than an FDW – no debts to agents to pay off, and therefore in the worst case they simply return home empty-handed and inconvenienced, rather than return home to an insurmountable debt.

Perhaps it is time to look at the practices of debt through agencies in the sending nations and receiving nations to remove this shackle from our FDWs – something that Jakarta has neglected to address this time. There is also poor policing and reporting of passport confiscation and abuse through isolation, something that authorities in both nations could work to eliminate by mandating regular check-ins with the embassy or an agency or other watchdog.

The rationale for the continued existence of the FDW underclass simply boils down to this – we do not want to pay more for what we already get for this price. Societies that do not rely on an underclass have found some sort of equilibrium which ensures that the aged and young are cared for without the need to exploit any group in particular, but for us to grant FDWs equal employment rights (and responsibilities) is simply too expensive, and we rely on them too much to make this change now. Such has been the case for every society that has relied on some form of underclass for its ‘efficient’ existence, be it something as distasteful as slavery or a caste system, to more ‘acceptable’ forms such as a nobility-peasant divide, or a near-insurmountable class gap.

It doesn’t mean, however, that FDWs should not be treated with respect and given flexibility when it comes to where they lay their heads. After all, a soldier may be ordered to report back to duty on short notice and pull long shifts without rest or additional pay in times of real need, but he or she is still allowed, where appropriate, to make his or her bed outside of the camp. There is flexibility.

There is also flexibility for employers to give their FDWs more than the mandatory minimum of a weekly rest day. FDWs can be given whole weeks off if their employer so chooses. This flexibility has not corrupted our FDWs nor exposed anyone to unusual risks.

So even in the absence of Employment Act rights, why not let those who want the flexibility to have their maids live off-site do so, and take responsibility for the risks and benefits that such practice entails?

.

.

Featured image Calling Home: Migrant Workers in Hong Kong by Flickr user KC Wong. CC BY 2.0. 

If you like this article, Like the Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

The post Don’t rule out live-out maids appeared first on The Middle Ground.

- Daniel Yap