FORFEITURE OF SECURITY BONDS OF EMPLOYERS OF FOREIGN DOMESTIC MAIDS

Dr Tan Boon Wan asked the Minister for Manpower how many employers of foreign domestic maids have their security bonds forfeited or withheld since January 1998, and of these, how many of the maids went missing while in the care of employment agencies, and whether his Ministry will consider amending legislation to hold the employment agencies liable for those maids who went missing while in their custody.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, during the first six months of this year, the security bonds of 79 employers of foreign domestic workers were forfeited because their workers have absconded. This is a small proportion of more than 100,000 foreign domestic workers who are currently working in Singapore. Most of the foreign domestic workers had run away from their employers' homes. There were very few reports of foreign domestic workers running away while under the care of the employment agents. As such, I do not have the number of such cases.

Sir, employers whose foreign domestic workers have absconded are given one month from the date of cancellation of the work permit to locate and repatriate the worker, failing which the security deposit will be forfeited. However, we allow employers up to six months to locate or help to locate the missing workers and a refund of the forfeited money will be considered.

On the issue of foreign domestic workers going missing while in the care of the employment agencies, I would like to remind employers that they are ultimately responsible for the worker the day she comes into Singapore. The employer cannot shift this responsibility to an employment agent. It is therefore not necessary to amend the legislation to hold employment agents liable for foreign domestic workers who go missing while in their care. However, my Ministry will consider such factors in appeals by employers for refund of the security deposits.

Dr Tan Boon Wan: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State to reconsider the request. When an employer applies for a maid through an agency, the agency basically brings the maid in from whatever country and they make an arrangement with the employer and assures the employer that if the maid is not satisfactory, the employer can send the maid back to the employment agency and some arrangement will be made to send a new maid to the employer. Under these circumstances, I think there is an understanding between the employer and the agency to send the maid back to the agency if she is unsatisfactory. If this is the case, is it not right for the maid agency to take responsibility for the security of the maid while she is in their custody? And if the maid were to go missing during this period of time, does the Ministry not consider it appropriate that the responsibility should lie with the agency?

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, are you making a speech?

Dr Tan Boon Wan: I am sorry. I just want to say this. Will the Ministry reconsider its decision? The Ministry can help in resolving the issue of helplessness of the employer?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I have mentioned that the employer is ultimately responsible for the worker the day she comes into Singapore. He employs the worker and therefore he should be responsible for the worker. However, we will take this into consideration when appeals are made by employers for refund of security deposits when the maid goes missing under these circumstances. But I repeat again that the employer is responsible for the worker.

In some cases, the employer applies for transfers. While they wait for the transfer, the foreign domestic worker can still be under the care of the employer. So the employer should be responsible.

Dr Tan Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to ask the Minister of State whether it is fair for the employer to be held responsible when the maid is in the custody of the employment agency. The agency would say, "Yes, I will take back the maid and find you a new one." In this case, the employer would say to the maid agency, "I have already passed back this maid to you and she is under your custody." In this instance, would the Ministry consider passing legislation to hold the maid agency responsible? Because to say that the employer is responsible, I think it is not fair. The indifference of the maid agency could really frustrate the employer.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, as I have mentioned, the employer brings the maid into Singapore and he should be responsible for the maid. When the maid is given back to the employment agency while they wait for certain things to be done, I think the employer must recognise that he still has the responsibility for the maid. The employer can come to an arrangement with the employment agency. That is a private arrangement. But when the employer brings the maid into Singapore, our position is that he should be responsible for the maid. And if the maid goes missing, then he has to abide by the terms of the security deposit.