SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR FOREIGN MAIDS
Parliament of Singapore · 27 August 1996
Official Report, 27 August 1996, Vol 66, Issue 6 · Open in the reader (summaries, search, filters)
Mr Lew Syn Pau asked the Minister for Labour whether he will consider waiving the forfeiture of $5,000 security deposit for foreign maids in the event they abscond and the employers have done their best to locate them but to no avail.
Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the security bond is a safeguard to ensure that employers take responsibility for their foreign workers, including domestic maids, and repatriate them upon the cancellation of their work permits. The security bond is forfeited if the employer fails to repatriate the foreign worker regardless of the circumstances. Sir, this condition is made very clear to applicants for work permits. Without the security bond, employers may not exercise proper control over their foreign workers, resulting in more missing workers who may end up creating social problems. There could also be problems of irresponsible employers abandoning their foreign workers under the guise of missing or runaway workers which could lead to friction with labour-exporting countries. The problem of missing maids is not rampant. In fact, my Ministry's record showed that as of April 1996, the cumulative number of missing maids was only about 200. This is minuscule compared to the hundreds of thousands of foreign domestic workers who had come to Singapore over the years. We should not change a system which has worked well and enabled the vast majority of foreign domestic workers to return to their home countries expeditiously after their contract with their employers was completed.
Nevertheless, my Ministry is not completely inflexible in cases where the domestic workers have absconded. As a practice, we do not forfeit the security bond immediately. We understand the unhappiness of employers who are faced with the problem of absconding domestic workers. We have, since November last year, extended the grace period from 14 days to one month after the cancellation of the missing worker's work permit for employers to search for their missing workers before forfeiture of the security bond. Even after forfeiting the security deposit, a refund can be considered if the missing worker is found within three months and the employer has assisted or furnished information to my Ministry or Immigration Department leading to the location of the missing worker. This could be extended to six months on the merits of the case.
Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): Sir, in the event that the employer has exercised all due responsibility, including provision of the air tickets and having sent the domestic worker to the employment agency and while in the care of the employment agency, the maid absconds, whose responsibility is it? Will the security deposit be forfeited from the employer, or is it the maid agency's responsibility?
Dr Lee Boon Yang: As I said, when an employer applies for a work permit for a foreign worker, whether it is a foreign construction worker or a domestic worker, he undertakes the responsibility of repatriating the foreigner on completion of the contract. That is very straightforward. The employers have taken on the responsibility to repatriate the foreigner. If they choose to pass this responsibility to somebody else who subsequently fails to discharge the responsibility, it does not absolve them of the responsibility. Therefore, in cases where the employers have passed the domestic worker to some agent and expect the agent to do what is right, and if the agent fails to do that, unfortunately, under those circumstances, the bond may well have to be forfeited, unless the maid is subsequently located and repatriated.
Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tampines GRC): Sir, I am more concerned about the missing workers. What steps is the Government taking to trace these foreign workers and how successful are we in solving this problem?
Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, we are equally concerned with these missing workers. Where have they gone to? What are they up to? Which is why we have a system to minimise the occurrence of such cases. The Immigration Department and the Work Permit Department from time to time come across these workers who have left their employers and who are just hanging around in Singapore. Those who are discovered, we repatriate them as soon as we can obtain the proper documents for them. Some of these so-called missing workers have also taken refuge and shelter. In some cases, they may have taken shelter in their own mission. These are cases which are resolved quite easily because we have good working relationships with all the missions here. And if the workers report to them and are unwilling to go back to their employers, we will intervene to resolve the disputes with the employers and the workers can then be repatriated quickly.
Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, since the deposit will be forfeited when the maid absconds, why is it necessary for the employer to keep on paying the levy, even after he has reported to the Ministry? And he is paying the levy for a maid who is not there.
Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, if the employer discovers that the domestic worker has absconded and he chooses immediately to cancel the work permit, then no levy is payable. He does not have to pay any levy. But if the employer says that he is going to make his own effort to look for the maid and in the meantime keeps the work permit valid, then of course the levy has got to be paid. Because there is no way for my Ministry to go round and check on every household to see that the worker who has absconded is not working there or working for somebody else in the neighbourhood. It is impossible for us to check on every household considering the number of such foreign domestic workers. So, as long as the work permit is still valid, the employer will have to continue to pay the levy. As I said, the moment the employer discovers that his maid has absconded, it is up to him to decide what to do. He can cancel the work permit, in which case all obligations to pay the levy stop and then the security bond will be invoked. And he will be given, as I said in my explanation, up to six months to look for the maid or to provide information that could lead to the repatriation of the foreign worker, in which case the bond will be refunded to him.
Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng: Sir, in the event the maid is missing and the employer is able to get news, it is often not possible for the employer to physically drag the maid to his or her home. Which department would be able to assist? Would it be the Immigration or the Police? Because some residents have said that when they approached the Police, they say it is the Immigration. When they approached the Immigration, they say it is not their duty. Which is the right agency to assist them in this task of getting the absconded maid back?
Dr Lee Boon Yang: If the employer has information on the location of the maid, they can provide it to my Ministry. We will see how we can assist to repatriate the maid. Of course, we will also need the assistance and cooperation of the Immigration Department in doing so. But we will work together. The employer can provide the information to the Work Permit Department of my Ministry or to the Immigration Department. We will act to locate the maid and repatriate her.
Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng: Sir, an employer tries to repatriate his maid and at the airport the maid threatens suicide. It is not possible for the employer to send the maid back but has to get the help of an agency. The agency gives a written undertaking to repatriate the maid. Is the employer still held responsible for the abscondment of the maid in the event that it happens?
Dr Lee Boon Yang: We are prepared to look into such cases if the employer has obtained a clear or written undertaking from an agency which would take on the responsibility. Because, as I said earlier on, until the domestic worker is repatriated, the employer is, in law, responsible, because he has given us a security bond. But if the agency is prepared to give him a warranty of some kind or an undertaking that they will be responsible, then we can look into how to make the agency accept this responsibility.
Source: Singapore Parliament Official Report (Hansard) for 27 August 1996. Republished on SGParliament.