Ling is less adverse to the idea of having home helpers. I’m on the other hand dead-set against it and want to only consider it as a last resort when we absolutely cannot manage at all. Many reasons.
Reason #1. I’m personally conflicted about how I should see a home helper, and can imagine the mental wrestling eating me. Do I…
See her as an employee and adopt a superordinate-subordinate relationship?
See her as a friend and adopt a genial and tolerant disposition?
Ok, so many people will tell you there’s plenty of grey in between. You can be a super-nice yet firm employer! But I’ll have problems even with that… it’s personally difficult for me to be firm in a superordinate capacity and yet be nice at the same time. Character flaw.
Reason #2. I’m nervous. Just imagining a scenario where the home helper is alone at home with Hannah gives me the creeps.
Reason #3. Loss of privacy. To have someone whom I know little about lodging at our place before I properly know that person first unsettles me a lot.
And when problems come in, support for home helper employers in Singapore is piss poor. The newspapers, forums and Internet sites are abound with letters accounting incidents with helpers who bring their boyfriends back home, who get pregnant, who steal etc. Just the other day on The Straits Times…
In December last year, my wife and I hired a maid through an agency. She had been with us for about a month when we had to let her go due to misconduct.
As per our contract, our maid agency was supposed to provide us with a suitable replacement. We waited for weeks for the agency to contact us but to no avail. After repeated calls and visits, we were told the agency would send us a few biodata of possible replacements to choose from. To our surprise, we were sent the same profiles of maids we had seen earlier and rejected. The biodata were simply recycled.
…
It has been three weeks and we have not heard from AEAS (Association of Employment Agencies, Singapore). After all this, it was ironic to read AEAS’ Forum reply assuring readers of its commitment to investigate fairly and responsibly, and take action against errant agencies if need be.
As confused consumers who have been taken on a wild goose chase by AEAS, my wife and I would like to ask a simple question. As ‘aggrieved employers’, are we supposed to take matters into our own hands in hiring our own lawyer, or do we solicit the help of the Ministry of Manpower to ensure agency audit and employers’ rights protection?
And there are many such letters. Maybe there will come a point in time where there’re no other options but to engage home helper assistance. But until that time comes, I think I’d rather think (very hard) and explore other options first.
Another letter in the same thread from today’s ST Forum:
http://www.straitstimes.com/print/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_425622.html
Sep 5, 2009
Errant maids: No recourse for employers who become victims
MY INDONESIAN maid ran away after only seven weeks of employment when she was treated well and complimented for good work. Unknown to us, she had chalked up a hefty overseas telephone bill of $690. Subsequently, we discovered that she had stolen my elderly mother’s SIM card and replaced it with a dummy. With the stolen SIM card, she ran up another $800 cellphone bill while still at large.
Three police reports were made about her disappearance, and theft of cash and various articles. Although we gave the police many leads, such as text messages and phone calls received on my mother’s replaced SIM card, she is still missing.
When I contacted the maid agency, staff were defensive and indifferent, claiming that as she was employed by me, I would have to handle the situation myself. They also said that as she was still missing and could not be returned to the agency, I stood to lose advance wages paid.
I stand to lose about $4,050 in phone bills, fines and advance wages paid. This incident highlights shortfalls in current maid employment policies and practices:
# Although employers must abide by conditions of employment, in the case a dishonest maid, Ministry of Manpower (MOM) policies are punitive and rigid. As her employer, I still must pay for her eventual repatriation and fines for overstaying. MOM told me several times to ‘look for her and find her’. If I took this literally, I would have to search for her in person.
# MOM should also tighten control when licensing maid agencies. The current practice of allowing them to practise advance salary payments is unfair to employers as there is no shared financial responsibility when a maid goes missing.
# The current maid selection process is faulty and random. Potential employers must rely on superficial bio-data information. Furthermore, when employers return their maid for transfer, they are not obliged to disclose the real reasons. Perhaps MOM could stipulate that maid agencies and employers should declare in writing the real reasons for transfer, holding them liable for misrepresentation.
Germaine Ong (Ms)