Maid to get weekly rest days

[POA Teacher]

The maid killed her friend over a debt, and also the little girl who was with her friend.

Since then, maids get away with murder.

[JGMum]

fairplay:

Was the \"Flor Contemplacion\" case a result of some strange behaviour of an employer of maids that the govt needs to be \"diplomatic\" over this issue?

It was not, but like what hquek said, it still caused a diplomatic uproar. Unfortunately, in most diplomatic rows, it is not always about right or wrong, but sentiment.
It is not just diplomacy they have to worry about, it is also all the international NGO's (human rights group) that they have to deal with. Imagine, if all of a sudden, there are no more maids in Singapore, all this \"trouble\" for them will disappear as well. But, so will the revenue from maid levy. Then again, I am sure the garmen will come up with some other creative ways to generate tax revenue, like COE for P1 places? :siam:

[fairplay]

Thank you to POA Teacher and hquek for the background on the FC case.


If this was the background; what has diplomacy got to do with keeping silent when employers raised issues? If it was the intention of reducing reliance on maids (which we are speculating) the govt could have done many things.

The govt could just double or triple the levy. Would we still hire one?
The govt could have simply say it right in the face of the daft employers.

The govt have just made the maids lives even rosier by allowing them weekly day offs so that they won’t run away to Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. Why not just let them go and this would reduce the pool of maids for employers to employ?

I don’t see schools being set up so that employers can learn the duties of maids so that we can be less reliant on foreign maids.

Could the silence not mean that we employers are not worthy of any replies from the govt at all? We gripe about the hardship but we still somehow accept them so why should the govt bother to reply?
Could the silence not indicate that if you want a maid, these are the conditions. Take it or leave it!
The govt has called Singaporeans daft. So what is there to be diplomatic about it?

[JGMum]

fairplay:

Thank you to POA Teacher and hquek for the background on the FC case.


If this was the background; what has diplomacy got to do with keeping silent when employers raised issues? If it was the intention of reducing reliance on maids (which we are speculating) the govt could have done many things.

The govt could just double or triple the levy. Would we still hire one?
The govt could have simply say it right in the face of the daft employers.

The govt have just made the maids lives even rosier by allowing them weekly day offs so that they won't run away to Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. Why not just let them go and this would reduce the pool of maids for employers to employ?

I don't see schools being set up so that employers can learn the duties of maids so that we can be less reliant on foreign maids.

Could the silence not mean that we employers are not worthy of any replies from the govt at all? We gripe about the hardship but we still somehow accept them so why should the govt bother to reply?
Could the silence not indicate that if you want a maid, these are the conditions. Take it or leave it!
The govt has called Singaporeans daft. So what is there to be diplomatic about it?

It is my personal view that MOM wants to reduce our reliance on maids, I may be wrong. And the reduced need to manage diplomatic fallouts with countries from which these maids hail from when something bad happens to them in Singapore would be a \"pros\" to reducing our reliance on them. Hence I speculate that even if conditions become less favourable towards maid employers, MOM may still go with \"status-quo\" (and remain silent on employers' gripes). Again, I may be wrong.

I have to admit that you are right in saying that MOM did not state very clearly that they want to reduce our reliance on FDWs. Though I inferred it from MOM's reply in the Straits Times forum on 18 Feb 2011 (more than a year ago) to justify their purpose of the levy.

\"The purpose of the levy is to moderate the demand and inflow of FDWs. There are about 200,000 FDWs in Singapore, equivalent to 175 FDWs per 1,000 household. This is much higher than 122 per 1,000 household in Hong Kong. Without the levy, the growth of FDWs in Singapore will be greater.\"

Also, I gather from trends - ramping up number of child-care centres, initiatives to get local housewives to be trained as part-time caregivers, etc. These trends seem to point to the direction that the govt wants us to reduce our reliance on maids, and stem the increasing growth in FDWs.

With regards to MOM's silence, there's still hope. In their press release on 5 Mar 2012, they did say that \"The Ministry will also be reviewing employers’ obligations for medical and repatriation costs for exceptional circumstances that employers have little or no control over. This will be part of the review of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations to ensure an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers.\" So hopefully the current \"silence\" means they are still in the process of evaluation, and maid employers are not \"totally forgotten\". And hopefully, pro-employer measures from this evaluation will be announced before the weekly rest day kicks in next year. :xedfingers:

[peapot]

I didn’t know the gov’t call us daft!!??? Was it in the papers? If so then why are we voting for them?

[verykiasu2010]

peapot:

I didn't know the gov't call us daft!!??? Was it in the papers? If so then why are we voting for them?

\"If Mr Mah is unable to defend himself, he deserves to lose. No country in the world has given its citizens an asset as valuable as what we've given every family here. And if you say that policy is at fault, you must be daft.\" - when asked about a Straits Times report that cited keen opposition interest in contesting Tampines GRC, which National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan helms, so that they can raise the affordability of public housing as an election issue (Prime Minister's Office, January 28 2010 [7])

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

[Hard Truth]

peapot:

I didn't know the gov't call us daft!!??? Was it in the papers? If so then why are we voting for them?

verykiasu2010 has been very kind to provide you the information.

Don't feel bad...I did not know that too until someone ask me to google \"daft Singaporeans\"

Now to your question \"If so then why are we voting for them?\"
Obvious answer: Because we are daft! (Well 60% anyway. Consolation is that at least 40% is not daft)

[1amber]

Perhaps 60% didn’t know they were called ‘daft’.

[peapot]

What is there to feel bad? Surprise maybe. I m very sure many people doesn’t know about this.

[toddles]

I thought this article was quite good.


http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CG0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.todayonline.com%2FWorld%2FEDC120411-0000001%2FPreparing-for-life-without-maids&ei=sEWFT7e4B4vyrQf_gom_Bg&usg=AFQjCNHgVPrxOAw-RVi5CXnaX8gFo2b2Aw

maybe the writer could have made it more meaningful by sharing how he copes with or without a maid in his years here.