PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Introduction

Sir, the number of foreign maids has increased from around 80,000 in December 1993 to more than 100,000 in December 1997. We also have a few thousand locals working as maids. Many could be working part-time.

Domestic maids are female, work within the confines of their employers' home for 24 hours of the day, and except during their time-off, are isolated from the rest of society nearly all the time, and depend on their employer for food and lodging. Maids are therefore more vulnerable to abuse by employers and their immediate family members, than any other categories of employees.

All employers have an obligation to treat their maids humanly and decently. The great majority of employers treat their maids well, but a small minority behave as if their maids are slaves. They get upset easily when their maids do not meet their expectations. Some even physically abuse them. Maid abuse could be in the form of simple assault or causing serious hurt. Some employers took advantage of their maids by outraging their modesty.

The number of maid abuse cases reported to the Police nearly doubled, from 105 in 1994, to 192 in 1997. Of the 192 reported cases in 1997, 157 cases were substantiated with evidence, and appropriate actions had been or are being taken against the offenders. Although the number is still small relative to the maid population in Singapore, we should curb such incidents before they get out of hand.

Maid abuse runs counter to Singapore's aspiration to become a gracious and civil society. Abuse of foreign domestic maids can also damage our international reputation and bilateral relations. The recent case of Hartati, the Indonesian maid, for example, was widely reported in the Indonesian media. Jakarta imposed a temporary ban on maids coming to Singapore, following that incident.

Enhanced Penalties

My Ministry proposes to designate certain offences in the Penal Code to carry 1.5 times the normal maximum penalties, if perpetrated upon a domestic maid (regardless of whether she is a local or a foreigner) by the employer or a member of the employer's household. This will signal clearly to employers of domestic maids that the Government takes a serious view of maid abuse.

Specifically, these offences are:

(1) Hurt or Grievous Hurt (section 323, section 324 and section 325) of the Penal Code;

(2) Wrongful Confinement (section 342, section 343 and section 344);

(3) Assault or use of Criminal Force with intent to outrage modesty (section 354); and

(4) Insult of Modesty (section 509).

Simple hurt and outraging of modesty are the two most common forms of maid abuse. These two offences together constitute about 92% of all cases in the last four years.

Clause 2 of the Bill creates a new section 73 in the Penal Code, prescribing that the maximum penalties for the offences I have listed would be 1.5 times what the offender would otherwise have been liable for, when the victim is a domestic maid, and the offender is the employer or a member of the employer's household. For example, the current maximum penalty for voluntarily causing hurt is 1 year's imprisonment, or up to $1,000 fine, or both. The maximum penalty will become 1.5 years' imprisonment, or up to $1,500 fine, or both. Clause 2 will also make any attempt to commit or abet these offences punishable with the enhanced penalties.

Applicability of enhanced penalties

Sir, the enhanced penalties will apply whether the offences take place inside or outside the employer's place of residence. This is because the abuse need not necessarily take place within the four walls of the employer's home. Employer's household will be defined as family members of the maid's employer who are residing in the same home as the employer and the maid. It will exclude visiting relatives and friends, as they do not exercise any authority over the maid.

The enhanced penalties will also not apply in situations such as when a maid's employer sends her to work in another household, say, his brother's home on an ad hoc basis, and a member of that household, say, his brother, subsequently abuses her. Of course, the employer should not have sent the maid to work in his brother's home in the first place, as this is against the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. But should he do that, the enhanced penalties would not apply because like visiting relatives and friends, the brother does not exercise any real authority over the maid.

By the definition of domestic maid in the Bill, the enhanced penalties will also not apply to part-time maids. This is because part-time maids maintain their network of family and friends, and are consequently less vulnerable to abuse.

Since I first introduced the Amendment Bill in this House, I have received feedback that some employers are concerned that their maids may exploit the special protection provided to them under the Amendment Bill to get out of their contracts or to spite their employers. Let me assure Members that we will continue to safeguard employers' interests against such maids. Police will warn and, where appropriate, prosecute a maid for giving false information to a public servant, under the Penal Code. Foreign maids who misconduct themselves stand to lose their work permit and can also be debarred from working in Singapore.

Jurisdiction

The Magistrate's and District Courts are currently empowered, under the Criminal Procedure Code, to impose sentences up to two years' and seven years' imprisonment respectively. To enable these Courts to continue to hear maid abuse cases carrying the enhanced penalties, clause 2 of the Bill provides for these Courts to continue to have jurisdiction over such cases and impose the enhanced penalties.

Conclusion

Sir, this Bill is intended to send a strong signal to those employers who have a tendency to abuse their domestic maids that we take a very stern view against such abuse. My Ministry will continue to monitor closely maid abuse trends after the enhanced penalties have been implemented. If necessary, we will take additional measures to tackle maid abuse, including expanding the situations when the enhanced penalties would apply.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to enhance the penalties for offences against domestic maids.

Sir, with growing affluence and the increase in dual income families, employing women foreigners to take care of our domestic chores and to tend to our children or elderly parents has become the trend in most families who can afford to do so. Even for families where the wife is not working outside the home, having a maid to do housework and to take care of children or the elderly sick is fairly common as well.

However, and sadly though, affluence does not bring about a refinement in character or behaviour of some Singaporeans. In recent years, abuse of domestic maids, going by press reports, has become fairly common and there seems to be a worrying trend. The type of abuses, as reported in the media, has also become more bizarre and cruel. Abusers seem to be getting younger too!

Of course, there are also reported cases of false accusations being made against employers but such cases are in the minority. Those maids invariably did so to get out of their contract of service so that they may return to their homes early.

Sir, by and large, the majority of domestic maids are well behaved and discharge their duties admirably. They take a huge load off their employers, especially the career women and working mothers. There are also instances of domestic maids who had performed tasks beyond their call of duty and helped save the lives and property of their employers.

Good employers are also happily in the majority and many grateful and understanding employers have also regarded trusted maids as members of their own family and take good care of their maids.

Sir, notwithstanding this, it is still necessary for us to arrest the rising trend of domestic maid abuse. We must understand that domestic maids are human beings who are forced to offer themselves as maids because of financial hardship. They leave behind their families to come alone to a strange land so that they may sustain their families at home.

Domestic maids are not like those in regular jobs. They have no co-workers to turn to for help or emotional support. They are very much on their own to fend for themselves. They do not work regular hours as those in regular employment do and there are cases of maids having to work literally 24 hours a day. They have also no homes to return to, to unwind like most of us, and are in constant contact with their employers. Lastly, they have no families to turn to for emotional support. All these make a domestic maid different from not only us, but also other foreign workers. Domestic maids are cooped up in their employers' homes day-in-day-out. They are totally cut off from the rest of the world, as it were. If they are abused, there is no one on hand to help them. It is for these reasons that the law must protect them and punish the guilty to deter others.

There is a perception, Sir, that offences against domestic maids are committed by male employers. This is not so as there are several cases of abuse committed by women employers, their parents or children. Domestic maids are not only sexually abused, they can be physically and emotionally violated. Most of these incidences of abuse seem to be reported by third parties, and not by the maids themselves. These maids may be too intimidated to do anything but suffer in silence as they may have been put in fear of their life and limb and even repatriation, if they dare breathe a word of their ill-treatment.

I also wish to address the concern of some Singaporeans who feel that the enhanced penalties seem to favour domestic maids more than abused wives. This is not so and I do not think that this is even our intention. Wives should not be compared with domestic maids as they are a special category of persons who enjoy the protection of the law and they have a special role in our society as our policies have always been family-oriented. Abused wives can seek redress in the Family Court by way of a personal or expedited protection order for herself, or a domestic exclusion order. They can also turn to their own parents, siblings, relatives or friends readily for assistance to deal with violent or abusive husbands. They can also bring an end to such abuse, of course, ultimately by divorcing their husbands. Maids do not have this ready access or privilege. Neither can they enjoy any other protection because they do not know how to access it and do not have the financial means to do so.

Sir, perhaps in seeking to enhance the penalties for offences against domestic maids, we should also take this opportunity to look into the penalties for offences of family violence as well to see if they should also be brought up to date.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Sir, in the wake of a spate of maid abuse cases in the last few months, I think the Penal Code is timely, necessary and consistent with our national effort, as the Minister himself said, to create a gracious and caring society. No one can object to our Government severely penalising employers who exploit their maids and treat them like indentured servants or domestic animals.

The concept of enhanced penalties for a specially vulnerable and defenceless category of victims is valid. It is a commendable example of State-sanctioned protection for the particularly vulnerable members of a domestic household. I would, however, take the point further and argue that the Amendment Bill has not gone far enough and should be extended to include enhanced penalties for other vulnerable victims like spouses, young children, handicapped and elderly dependants.

Sir, let me elaborate. The Amendment Bill sends an inconsistent message on violence. If it is valid to regard domestic maids as a specially vulnerable category of victims for protection, why leave out the other potentially helpless and exploited members in any household? Does the Minister not feel equally compelled to also enhance penalties for child abuses, especially sexual abuses of minors and those who are intellectually disabled? Children are as vulnerable and powerless as maids in the hands of abusive parents. What about abuses of elderly dependants and spouses? Why single out maids?

We need a consistent deterrent against domestic violence, regardless of who is the victim. Chief Justice Yong Pung How in the recent annual Workplan seminar said that "punishment policy must be clear, predictable and coherent". I cannot agree more.

For me a punishment reflects a society's values about what it considers as unacceptable behaviour. Our message must be consistent. Insofar as abuse of maids is an act of domestic violence, the same principle of enhanced penalties should apply to all vulnerable victims such as spouses, young children, and the handicapped or elderly dependants. In this respect, I stress that injury need not simply be physical in nature, and extreme humiliation is certainly a form of psychological violence.

My second point is the Amendment Bill highlights the discrepancy and discrimination in the treatment of wives and domestic maids. With enhanced penalties only for maid abuses, we may end up with an iniquitous situation whereby, if a man bashed up his wife he could get one year's jail, but if he commits the same degree of violence on the maid, he could get one-and-a-half time year's jail. Why do we make penalties for wife abuse lighter? Will we end up condoning spousal violence more than maid abuse?

This is a case of equal treatment of women as a whole and respect for them. Our Constitution provides for equality before the law; any preferential treatment of one category of women, the domestic maids, as opposed to an equally important category of women, the wives, will violate this principle and create more resentment against the law at its apparent lack of comparable protection for local abused wives. We need to remove or address this discrepancy.

If we do not address this two-tier punitive sanction, we are in danger of creating different classes of victims of domestic violence and it would be unfair to potential victims. It would appear that the drafters of this Bill are more sympathetic to the sufferings of the domestic maids than the pain of abused wives. I hope the amendment of this Bill is a start for an overall review of the sentencing guidelines on domestic violence.

Only then we can clearly say to the community that domestic violence of any kind and to any helpless member of a household is wrong. I do not think it is highly improbable one day, a violent employer, who is about to hit a maid in a fit of rage, will suddenly think twice and will deliberately choose to hit a family member - child, spouse or elderly parent instead - because he or she will get away with a lighter sentence! Indeed, many wives may be compelled to claim that they are in fact domestic maids, in order to get greater protection under the law! I am sure, Sir, that such an unintended consequence is not what the Government has in mind when introducing this Amendment.

My third issue, which is related to this Bill which I thought I should bring up, is the recognition that the Amendment Bill is only an enabling legal tool. It is a necessary measure but not a sufficient one to stop maid abuse. Other social policies must be established.

An important reason why abuse of domestic maids occurs, Sir, is not because of inherent nastiness of Singaporean families. The same person who treats his subordinate at the workplace with respect, and waitresses or other service personnel outside the household, may abuse the maid at home. This apparent dichotomy in behaviour is due to the fact that our society has created certain normative standards of conduct towards people we deal with outside our household. The employer-employee relationship is bound by many laws which establish a web of mutual obligations. The State has created this web; otherwise, we would have workplaces that resemble Dickensian conditions, and workers' rights have gone a long way since the last century.

Yet we do not have a codified, formalised web of mutual relationships and obligations for workers in the domestic household. The domestic household worker should have no different rights and responsibilities as a factory worker or office worker. It is precisely because they do not, and that their destiny is subject to the whims and random kindness of their employers. Sir, we cannot leave such relational harmony in a household to "luck" and ambiguous management.

On one hand, we ask for greater deterrents against maid abuse; on the other hand, we must institutionalise the working arrangements of maids. There should be standard, properly drafted work contracts stipulating terms and conditions, mutual obligations - no less than what governs the working relationship between a factory operator and the employer.

I urge the Ministry of Manpower to draft a standard employment contract for all domestic maids in Singapore, regardless of nationality. We should also consider extending the Workmen's Compensation Act and other relevant protective legislation for gainfully employed people, to domestic maids. Currently, only some embassies out of concern for their nationals who work as maids, do so. But we would like some standardisation. And more important than legislation is consistent enforcement of State sanctions on violations. Laws are only effective when they are activated.

All these are not enough, Sir. We also should have education programmes to educate families about relationship dynamics and potential conflicts which can arise when a stranger enters the family with all the attendant stresses.

Sir, we have countless programmes on parenting, on marital counselling, etc. Yet we have ignored the fact that a maid, within the confined space and privacy of household, has not been considered as a member of the family, for natural reasons. Yet we do not have programmes to teach employers and maids how to relate. Companies hold courses for supervisors to learn how to deal professionally with workers, but we do not think that employers, like housewives, for example, need to learn the same in dealing with their maids.

The sooner we recognise the reality that domestic maids are going to be a permanent - and growing - feature of Singapore society (we have 100,000 of them now and there will be more, I think) and establish a professional relationship with them within the household, the better prepared we are as employers to tap them as a valuable resource to help us cope with the double burden responsibilities of most Singapore families.

Sir, I support this Amendment Bill and I hope we take this opportunity to adopt a thorough and multi-pronged approach at all levels to address domestic violence within the coherent framework of fair and appropriate sanctions for all.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me this opportunity. First, I rise to support the Bill. The Bill is timely. The newspaper reports, both in the Straits Times and the New Paper, have highlighted the plight of these maids, especially the New Paper. Many thought it was sensational to have this news but I think it was a reminder, Sir, to Singaporeans at large that some members of our community are not being fair to these maids.

Sir, the majority of our citizens treat their maids well, but there is a small minority who think they literally own these maids. They require them to do all sorts of things. With the proposed legislation, this small group is well warned that should they not change, they will meet the might of the law and the law will take all this into consideration.

Sir, many may think that this is a bit harsh, but I do not think so. These maids have come all the way from different countries. They have left their families; they are in a foreign country with different cultural milieu and they have come here because of economic necessity in their countries. In fact, let us not forget when our forefathers came, they too came in this condition to earn a living here. These maids have left their families behind, some of them have young children. And instead of showing some sympathy, these perpetrators have in fact treated these maids with abuse.

Sir, in earlier days, maids were a luxury. Only the rich could afford them. They were the traditional "black and white" ladies who, in most cases, were regarded as members of the family. And they, in fact, had authority of the family to punish errant children and many children regarded them as good as their parents. Why have we shifted the position? I think this is something that we ought to ask ourselves. Has our society lost its compassionate values? Because both the traditional "black and white" ladies and these ladies do the same thing. It is necessary for parents that they conduct with their maids in such a way that their children will pick the good habits from them - the language that is used, the way we address them, the way we deal with them, the way we take them out for lunch, whether we let them sit outside the cafeteria or they sit with us. These are the values which the children will pick up. In many cases, the maids are so good that the children regard them as foster parents. And these maids have very important responsibilities to the family, and I would urge the Singaporeans at large not to do anything that will diminish our standing in the international community.

I congratulate the Minister, not because of any pressure from outside but because of our own conviction that what is being done is not correct, that the Government has decided to introduce this legislation. If nothing else, it will serve as a reminder, I repeat again, Sir, to those who are not going to conduct themselves properly that they are going to meet the might of the law.

Sir, there is one area which I am a little concerned. Some of these maids have the habit I have one experience through my professional dealings of making allegations which are not accurate. There may be some truth in the allegation. I am glad that the Police were so thorough, that we must pay tribute to our Home Team, and that the officers concerned investigated the matter. This is very important because the Police have been very fair. When the law is being administered, we must see the genuine from the fake. There will be some cases, Sir. But this is an administrative area. I would urge the Minister not to tolerate such acts of these maids which are purely to punish the husband or wife of the household.

We have an increasing demand for maids. Although it is not related, I would like to mention that we may have to live with this phenomenon for some time to come. But we should try to see that we are less dependent on maids. This is a social problem that we have to consider. But I am fully in support of this move. This legislation is necessary. I hope the Government, the NMPs and the Opposition in this House will vote and show our neighbours and maids that we are all in support.

With this, I support the Bill.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, this is an important issue. Singaporeans have been shocked by the cases spotlighted by the media and I believe no Singaporean condones the behaviour we have seen. Yet, there seems to be no sign of the problem abating.

If we take the figures of complaints made to the Philippine Embassy alone, we can see that there has been little improvement from 1992 to 1996. The number of complaints of ill treatment had been held fairly constant. For cases of molest, it had been fluctuating from year to year, most notably, although with some fluctuation, complaints about assault had gone up sharply. The Minister's figures on the Police reports, which are different from the Embassy's complaints, show similar trends for assault. Briefly, Sir, in 1992, complaints received by the Philippine Embassy for assault were a mere 20; 1993, 70; 1994, 39; 1995, 79; 1996, 115. I do not have the 1997 figure, Sir. This kind of stark cruelty, Sir, flies in the face of our ambition of becoming a gracious society. For if we are to become truly a gracious society, then we must accord human dignity to all of us, all among us, regardless of race, religion, nationality, status or even economic standing.

There are some basics, Sir, that must be respected. And if these basics are not observed, then there must be equal right to redress against the wrongdoer, no matter who he or she is. Domestic workers and foreign maids must have equal protection under our laws and equal access to justice and institutions of law. That is the true promise of a gracious society, an equal society; that is the promise of human dignity and human rights. It only takes a few severe cases to bring that promise into question. It only takes a few severe cases to strain our relationships with the society from which these foreign workers come from. I do not mean just government and government with our neighbouring countries. I mean between society and society, people to people. So I join the Government and the Minister in seeking ways of improving our behaviour and stopping this ill-treatment of domestic maids.

But even so, in considering this particular Bill, we should have two concerns. The first is whether this amendment is fair and just. The second is whether this amendment is sufficient for the task.

On the question of fairness and justice, some other MPs and NMPs have spoken on this, and indeed some may question whether these particular amendments are fair to Singaporean employers. This is because we are basically proposing a system of unequal laws. That is, as NMP Claire Chiang has pointed out, you have potentially a lesser penalty if you strike your wife or your child as opposed to your domestic maid. That is true too if you strike a foreign worker who is not a domestic maid or a part-time domestic maid; you also do not get the enhanced penalties. There are some employers and other people who would argue, no, this should not be done. In fact, there are cases in which maids themselves have been guilty of something illegal. I think these are real concerns. But I want to point out why, to my mind, these unequal laws are nevertheless justified.

I wish to point out that there are other cases in which we do give special attention and special protection to classes of people. For example, we guard minors, the young in our society, our children, to a far greater degree than fellow adults. This is not merely because of their age or youth per se. Rather, it is a recognition of the particular vulnerability of this class. So to me, when we talk about this unequality of laws, the question must come: do domestic maids fit into this category of particular vulnerability? I believe they do. They are far from home in a strange land with laws, cultures and sometimes even a language which they do not fully understand or are conversant with. They live in the homes of their employers, subject to instructions 24 hours a day, sometimes, unreasonable; sometimes, reasonable. And if they face ill-treatment, some do not have friends to tell and often, do not feel comfortable enough about our police system to make a complaint. More to the point, many may be reluctant to complain, lest they may find themselves sacked, sent home straightaway for this will cause them great financial loss in addition to the physical and other abuses they have already suffered.

And on this point, I am reminded that our Minister for Manpower has earlier pointed out our continuing policy to give foreign workers a two-week period, at the most, once their work permits are revoked. This is a threat, in a way, that hangs over the heads of maids who want to complain. So for these reasons, the foreign domestic maids are more vulnerable than the average person in our society. And for these reasons, I stand apart from those who would say we must raise the other penalties first. We should lead with this amendment and if these laws are unequal, I think this can be justified.

Let me then turn to my second question: whether this amendment, on its own, is sufficient for the problem that it tries to solve. Sir, in making laws and public policy, there are clearly different ways and stages for preventing criminal or other unwanted behaviour. There are at least four we can think of: (1) Education and self-control or restraint; (2) Counselling, mediation, often by the community; (3) Preventive intervention by Police or other Government agencies; (4) Punishment by the courts. Of these four possibilities of stages and institutions, the Bill before this House clearly targets the fourth and last punishment by the courts. This is not a prescription for self-control or prevention. These laws, if passed, increase the maximum possible penalties. The harm in that case has already been done. The amendment does not help that particular employer or that particular maid. It does not prevent a particular instance of abuse. At most, we can say we are sending a signal to other employers that they should not cause harm to other maids. Is that signal enough?

Often, crimes in a household are not rational and thought out in advance. They are often acted out on impulse, anger or a moment of weakness. In such cases, I think, frankly, this amendment will not help. Acting on impulse or anger, few are going to pause, as NMP Claire Chiang has imagined they might, to say, "Wait, I will get 1� times the penalty. Therefore, I will stop." Anger and impulse drive human nature much more strongly than this. For this reason, while I agree that the ill-treatment of domestic maids is an important problem, I believe this amendment alone is insufficient.

I would like to ask the Government to consider other approaches to supplement the present amendment. We should recognise that irrationality is often the cause of these abuses and address the underlying household relationship between employer and domestic maid. And I hope this Government will take a multi-pronged approach to the problem.

In this approach, penal sanctions, such as those today, will play a part. They can be a symbol that we take ill-treatment seriously. Other measures are important. So the symbol stands for something real and is not a mere symbol. The other measures I have in mind relate to the other stages I have mentioned for prevention, in terms of education, counselling and mediation.

Sir, we have been learning to use these tools more in recent years. We have sought to apply them in matters concerning the family and concerning the community. Beyond family members and neighbours, let us also include another member of many Singaporean households, the domestic maid or helper. Government agencies cannot and should not do this alone. They should work with civil society groups. There are already a number of civil society groups and non-government organisations, such as the Family Life Society, to just mention one, which already offer some help and counselling to foreign maids. More can be done. For example, courses for employers and household members can be held. But these groups often find themselves short of staff and funds to cope with the needs. Government can and should assist and support their work by closer coordination with MCD and relevant agencies, and the provision of funding. Some useful work that could be done includes establishing a hotline, or helpline, especially for maids.

For the employers, I urge information and education. The Ministry of Manpower has taken steps in this direction. More can be done. I would urge that on granting and renewing work permits, the Ministry of Manpower sends employers (a) information on agencies and NGOs to provide frontline counselling and mediation; (b) information about the enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, assuming we pass it; and (c) a code of conduct on treatment of domestic maids, if not, a standard contract. Only some embassies and some employment agencies, as the Minister well knows, have adopted such a standard contract. The Government could help in this case to ensure that other agencies are encouraged to follow suit.

The primary aim of what I propose the Ministry or the Government as a whole do would not be to scare employers because I think scare tactics would not help us when impulse and irrationality take over. Rather, it is to share with them the norms that this community and this Government expect of its citizens.

Another point on which we could help domestic workers, the maids, is to reconsider our repatriation policy as regards those who make complaints. At this point, I need some clarification from the Minister or perhaps his colleague, the Minister for Manpower. My limited understanding of the issue is that the maids who make complaints are treated just as any other foreign worker who has his work permit terminated. In other words, when I complain, I lose my job, I go home. And as I have said earlier, in this short plea, that this in a way is a chilling factor. People will not complain because their economic concerns and their livelihood are tied up with this issue. They will stomach much too much.

Such measures, Sir, can help prevent ill-treatment. Some employer-maid relationships can be kept cordial through counselling and mediation. In other cases, if a particular relationship is beyond repair, then counselling and this change of manpower policy can help both sides recognise that it is best for the maid to transfer to a new employer to seek other employment, rather than to continue in that household. Prevention is a better approach than punishment after the crime. These measures will also help Singaporeans to be more educated and move us towards a more gracious society, cognizant of the human dignity of all of us and all among us.

Lastly, Sir, some comments about the drafting of the Bill. First, I think it must be clear to all of us that while the amendments enhance the maximum penalty, sentences will not necessarily be heavier. The courts retain discretion in individual cases to mete out punishment within the normal limits, rather than going to the enhanced levels. This Bill, in this sense, does not prescribe mandatory penalties. Many may question this. I think this is rightly so, that these cases involve household relationships, that there are many variables and, therefore, there may be many mitigating factors involved which should be left to the courts on individual cases.

Second, the Bill singles out some crimes for enhanced penalties but not others, as the Minister has explained. But I find that this is so even if the other crimes are of a very similar nature. For example, wrongful confinement is enhanced under sections 343 and 344 of the Penal Code. However, wrongful confinement under section 342 is not. To me, the only difference between these crimes is the period of confinement. Section 343 is for three days or more. Section 344 is for 10 days or more. Section 342, presumably, is for periods less than three days.

Sir, these are differences of quantity and not of quality. For consistency and to send the right signal, I would suggest to the Minister that all these penalties should be enhanced. It should then be left to the courts whether to enhance penalties in individual cases as befit the circumstances before them.

The third point on drafting is how this Bill defines "domestic maids". A "domestic maid" is defined as "any female house servant employed in, . the domestic services of her employer's private dwelling-house and who resides in her employer's private dwelling-house;". The last part on residence concerns me. It occurs to me that there are circumstances in which the employer, the person holding the employment pass, may house the maid elsewhere with another person, such as the parent or relative. This, of course, is against the conditions of the work permit. However, though it is against the conditions of the work permit, it is not clear if the maid would still be protected by this Bill, since she does not live in the employer's house. This means that the employer is punished under the work permit laws, but not the new enhanced penalties under the Penal Code. For this reason, if there is ill treatment, it is not clear if the employer or relative would be subject to enhanced penalties under the Penal Code. If this is true, then people would benefit by doing one wrong, acting contrary to the work permit, and avoid punishment for another wrong, enhanced penalties under this Act.

To clear these doubts and to give full effect to these amendments, I suggest the section should have a deeming provision. Such a provision would deem that the holder of an employment permit is, for the purposes of the Penal Code, an employer for the purposes of enhanced penalties, and the maid is deemed to live in the household, no matter what the situation in actual life is. This would then make two sets of people potentially liable, those who are in actual control of the maid and those who hold the work permit.

Sir, I support this Bill, as I have said from the start, but I encourage that this be the first step. Let it be the first step and let other measures, by Government directly or Government enabling and civil society following, come after this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.34 pm until 3.00 pm Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I shall keep my speech short and sharp in view of the fact that previous speakers have spoken quite eloquently on this. In my view, this is one Bill we should never have needed in the first place. But I rise to support this Bill, as I believe that we should take stern measures against employers who commit offences against such domestic maids.

On the surface, the legislation appears discriminatory in that it treats offences against domestic maids, who are generally foreigners, more seriously than similar offences committed by Singaporeans against other Singaporeans. I have my reservations about such discriminatory legislation although, in this particular case, there is justification for doing so.

I am assured that the Minister recognises the fear that this legislation can lead to abuses when maids may blackmail employers. There have been cases of maids making false allegations about their employers.

Sir, we can all agree that recent cases of abuses of maids by a few employers have tarnished and damaged the reputation of Singapore, especially at a time when we want to attract foreign workers who work and live here. This Bill reflects our seriousness in ensuring that foreigners are not only welcomed to Singapore, their safety and security safeguarded, but that we will go to the extent of having such discriminatory legislation. In the long run, however, Singapore's reputation as a place and home for these foreigners rests not on such enforcement and deterrence, but on the goodwill, trust and respect that we earn of being responsible, caring and fair employers. Until such time when we can meet in this House again to remove such a provision on the ground that such legislation is no longer required, we would not have achieved this goal.

I would also urge the Minister to consider other penalties, such as to prohibit employers and their immediate families from ever employing a domestic maid, either local or foreign, if they are found guilty of abusing their maids. In more serious cases of abuse, we should have no hesitation to shame and make public the names of such offenders.

I believe that much of the problems we have seen in recent cases stems from the disrespect some Singaporeans have of maids, in particular, and those who work and serve them, in general. Perhaps it is timely that we considered a campaign to inform Singaporeans about the real need to treat foreigners well, whether professionals or casual labourers, and especially to inform them of the important contribution such foreigners make to Singapore's economy and society.

On the whole, Sir, I wish to support this Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill.

In an earlier sitting of this House on 30th August 1993, the Minister for Labour, in answer to an Oral Question, assured the House that firm action would be taken against employers found abusing their maids. Not only are they subjected to the general criminal laws of the land, the employer and the spouse will also be barred from future employment of foreign maids. It now appears that these measures have been found to be insufficient in dealing with the problem. This is indeed a matter of grave concern and deep disappointment. In Singapore, we are attempting to create a gracious and civil society. At the same time, there are those who are obstructing this objective and who are intent on victimising those who work for them and their families.

Now it is proposed in this Bill that the punishment be enhanced to 1.5 times that of the penalties in the Penal Code for the prescribed offences. While I agree that the penalties should be enhanced as proposed, I wonder whether that would be sufficient to deal with the mischief that the Bill seeks to address. For example, are there enough avenues for maids who allege abuse to go to report such abuses? Will such maids refrain from reporting if they think that to do so will result in them being unemployed or, worse, being asked to leave the country? Will abusive employers, who are cocooned by the realisation that the maids may be most reluctant to report them, be sufficiently discouraged by the increase in penalties?

It may be necessary and desirable to provide a code of conduct, a series of obligations of good conduct, that the employer of every maid should be asked to comply with, failing which they should then be deprived of the services of the maid and also be asked to pay the cost of the termination of such services. For instance, they may be asked to pay the maid the remainder of the contract of services and other costs to allow such a maid to gain other employment or to return to her home country. I should emphasise that this is not a proposal to set up a Maids' Charter or Bill of Rights. Rather, there should be a code of decent behaviour that should serve as a guide to all those who employ maids. In this way, there may be less misunderstanding, fewer opportunities for abuse and more harmony between the employer, the family and the maid.

Secondly, I think there should be some controls over maid agencies to ensure that the maids are properly briefed about taking up domestic duties in Singapore. One often hears of maids who do not understand the standards of hygiene, for example, in Singapore. Maid agencies should therefore give the maids orientation courses before they come to Singapore so that there will be less misunderstanding between the employer and the employee. And if there is less dissatisfaction with the maid, fewer opportunities for abuse will arise.

Going back to the Bill, there should be additional means other than the enhanced punishments to control this problem. I refer to compensation for the victims of abuse. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any abused maid to go through the civil process, for example, to claim for loss of pay or other costs, such as medical costs. The courts also have the jurisdiction and powers under the Criminal Procedure Code to award to the victims compensation for the abuse. This would, I am sure, be a firm signal to the victim that we in Singapore would want not only to see that the abusive employers be punished, but also that the victims be compensated. Of course, if this type of compensation is allowed, the investigating authorities must be very sure of the circumstances of each case. But as there is already ex hypothesi a criminal investigation in progress, I am sure that the standard approved will be high in every case.

Finally, I would like to draw on a remark made by the Minister just now when speaking on the Bill. He mentioned that the Bill would not cover part-time workers. On the question of whether a part-time worker should be regarded as somebody who does not deserve this enhanced protection, perhaps the Minister could explain to us why that is the case. But, in general, Sir, I support this Bill subject to the comments I have made.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. I have heard all the comments that they have made and, in particular, I just want to address a few points raised by the Members who have spoken.

Mr Chng Hee Kok and Mdm Claire Chiang asked whether we would enhance or look at the punishment for family violence. I think the issue of family violence was fully debated when we amended the Women's Charter about 1� years ago, and under those amendments we have provided a lot of access to women who are abused by their husbands and more or less given them an easier way of getting redress from the courts or the authorities when they are abused by their husbands. Of course, I believe my colleague in the Ministry of Community Development will continue to look at the trends in wife abuse and if the amendments do not deal with the problem, then in future we may have to relook at the punishments again. But, as of now, I do not think MCD is going to do anything about changing the Women's Charter, because I believe the amendments that it has made have adequately dealt with the problem.

On the children who are vulnerable and, therefore, need particular protection, I believe we have also made revision to the Children and Young Persons Act not long ago to enhance the penalties for people who abuse children. I think we have to wait and see whether the amendments have the intended effect or not. If not, I believe my colleague will also do something about that. But, as of now, I think we should leave the situation as it is.

The reason why we have brought up this subject of maids to this House and ask Parliament to enhance the punishment is that maids are very different from our relatives and other categories of workers. These maids come from far away countries. I would say most of them are illiterate and live in rural areas. Some have practically no idea what Singapore really is like until they step on to our shores and, therefore, adjustment can become quite difficult for them. More so, when they have to be separated from their families and work in a totally strange environment under very strange conditions. I think we have to pay some special attention to how they adjust and cope with the new environment. If in the process of working here, the employers were to take advantage of them or abuse them, then, in order to become a gracious and civil society, we have got to find ways of protecting them. Hence, this particular amendment to enhance the punishment for those who abuse their maids.

I do not think we should also equate our wives with maids. We really do not think our wives are maids. I think all of us love our wives. There is no doubt about that. But for some who do not, there are other ways for the wives to seek redress from their relatives and from those around them and they, unlike maids who are confined to the home, will know how to find a place to go to if they are abused by their husbands. So we should not take this lightly and think that our wives are like maids and, therefore, we should enhance the punishment for those who abuse their wives. But, as I said, if in time, indeed the abuse of wives is a serious problem, then I have no doubt that the Government will pay particular attention to that and amend the law, if necessary.

We are also in the process of reviewing the Penal Code for other offences and the review has been on-going for a while and I hope to be able to move the amendments in Parliament during this session. But until they are ready, I will not be able to tell you more about the sort of amendments that we are going to make and whether or not we are going to enhance the penalties for family violence.

Mdm Claire Chiang and others have also suggested that we should have a standardised contract for maids and this subject has been raised many times, particularly with the Ministry of Manpower. My colleague, the Minister for Manpower, tells me that actually the contract between maid and employer is really between the two of them. Maids work under different circumstances for different reasons, for different employers and so on, and therefore it is quite difficult to have a standard contract specifying the exact terms for each of the maids and employers. But the Manpower Ministry encourages the employers to have a contract with their maids, so that they know what their obligations are, what their duties are, what the terms are, and so on. And I believe that most employers have contracts for their maids. Otherwise, they will not be able to settle disputes when these disputes arise.

The Manpower Ministry does have a unit in the Ministry to help settle disputes for the maids who complain to them or even for the employers who complain about their maids to the Ministry. My colleague tells me that the Ministry has been quite successful in settling most of these disputes. Therefore, they do not see the need to impose a standard contract for hiring of maids. Some embassies, for example, do insist that maids have a standard contract. For example, the Philippine Embassy does insist that the maids have a standard contract; otherwise they will not be allowed to work in Singapore. Again, we leave it to the individual embassies to work out such arrangements.

Mr Simon Tay suggested that there should be other approaches to help resolve problems between maids and their employers. As I said, the Manpower Ministry does have a unit to help to mediate in employer-employee disputes between the maids and employers. But there are other measures that the Manpower Ministry is also considering. For example, they are considering issuing an advisory to all foreign workers in Singapore. This advisory will give them information concerning the conditions of work permit laws and employment in Singapore, the telephone numbers of the helpline of the Ministry, the contact numbers of the relevant agencies such as embassies and the Police. As Mr Tay suggested, there could be other NGOs who could help in mediation and conciliation of problems between employers and employees. I am sure the Manpower Ministry will consider co-opting them if they can provide assistance to the Ministry.

The Ministry is also considering doing an orientation video on the culture and norms in Singapore and what the foreign workers can expect here, and this will be produced and distributed free to all the employment agencies. The employment agencies are also encouraged to screen the video to foreign workers before they even start work. The advisory and the video will be available in a few months' time. But in the interim, the Manpower Ministry has provided the contact numbers of the Foreign Workers' Unit in the Ministry, through a letter issued to all the employers, to all the domestic foreign workers in Singapore. I believe those of us who are employers of foreign maids would have received such a notice some time ago.

With effect from March last year, employers of foreign domestic maids are also required to take up a personal accident policy for their foreign workers as a condition for grant of a work permit, and the minimum sum to be assured is $10,000 and the compensation, should it be payable, will be given to the foreign domestic worker or her beneficiaries.

So these are steps that the Ministry has taken to improve the working conditions and the terms of the foreign domestic workers. And I am sure the Manpower Ministry will consider other approaches and measures which they may think about from time to time which can help improve the lot of the domestic workers in Singapore.

Mr Tay also asked whether his understanding was correct regarding the repatriation policy of foreign domestic workers, that is, if a worker were to complain, then the worker would lose the job and be repatriated by the Ministry or by the employer. Apparently, according to the Manpower Ministry, this is not true. If a complaint were to be lodged against an employer, the Manpower Ministry will not allow the employer to cancel the work permit just like that, because they want to investigate the complaint. And sometimes the domestic worker could have gone to the embassy and be housed in the embassy, and during that period the worker also cannot be repatriated. And eventually should the maid be found to be not at fault and the employer is at fault, and she has paid a lot of money or she really wants to work in Singapore, the Manpower Ministry will allow her to continue to work in Singapore under a work permit for a different employer.

So the Ministry has been quite flexible, understanding and compassionate in considering the plight of those foreign domestic workers who have paid a lot of money to come here to work and who really genuinely want to work.

As to the drafting suggestions made by Mr Tay, I have been guided by the Attorney-General that this is the way we should draft our laws. Whether or not we should deem a person who is the employer as a registered employer of the domestic worker, even though that worker may not be working in his household, and deem the person liable for the enhanced punishment, I think we take it one step at a time. If there is a trend to show that employers overcome the law by getting another person to employ that worker, and eventually allow the person to work in his home and abuse the maid, then we will amend the law to take care of the problem. So, don't worry employers, if you intend to do that, be sure the law will catch up with you in no time.

Mr Baharudin suggested banning employers from hiring maids if they were found to have abused their maids. Yes, in fact, that is what the Manpower Ministry does. If a maid makes a complaint, and the complaint is substantiated, then the employer would be banned from hiring a domestic worker. Employers will be shamed indeed if their cases go to court and you will see that their names will be all over the newspapers. There is no doubt about that. Our newspapers will make sure of that too.

As regards the code of conduct, as suggested by Prof. Chin Tet Yung, I understand from my colleague, the Manpower Minister, that this is indeed being considered. They have already considered putting up a guide for employers so that they know their obligations and how they should treat their workers.

I believe I have dealt with most of the questions. If there is any other question which I have left out, please let me know.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.