By Lim Wen Juin and Rachel Low

We refer to the Channel NewsAsia report “3 ex-maids fined for ‘moonlighting’”.

We read this report with great sadness. These foreign domestic workers were fined between $3,000 and $5,500, which may be more than the average FDW’s yearly income. Yet, their only wrong was to have done household chores for people other than the employer specified in their work permits.

In other words, their honest, hard work brought them severe financial punishment.

We understand that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), in meting out the fines, was merely acting in accordance with the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and its subsidiary regulations. But could not MOM have treated them with greater leniency?

In particular, consider the case of 55-year-old Celestina Samam Castro. She worked four hours a week from Dec 2009 to 30 Nov 2011, at $10 an hour. This works out to an approximate total of $4,200 earned from her illegal employment. However, she was fined a larger figure of $5,500.

In any case, we wonder what could be the purpose of a blanket ban on FDWs working for any employer besides the one specified in the work permit.

If the purpose is to protect FDWs from exploitation by employers – which is a major purpose behind the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, according to Parliamentary debates – then surely it does not make sense also to penalise the protected workers.

If the purpose is to protect the interests of the employer specified in the work permit, then surely moonlighting should be allowed so long as the employer consents to it.

If the purpose is to prevent FDWs from moonlighting in the vice trade, then surely the scope of the ban can be narrowed, so that it does not apply to FDWs engaged in non-vice work, e.g. doing household chores.

If the purpose is to protect Singaporeans whose livelihood might be threatened by moonlighting FDWs, then perhaps far more leeway can be given to FDWs doing jobs that few Singaporeans are willing to do.

We are not saying that FDWs should have unrestricted freedom to moonlight. But we do think that restrictions on their freedom can be imposed in a more measured, nuanced way. For it seems to us that a blanket ban on moonlighting runs contrary to the Singapore spirit of rewarding enterprise and dignified hard work.

You May Also Like

The curious case of the tender notice with no details

by Vinny G. – On Wednesday 30 June 2010, The Straits Times published stories on China…

乔立盟:在波东巴西单选区的阿裕尼邻里警岗 网民讥选区划分到底有多荒谬?

人民党主席乔立盟,日前上传了一张在裕盛区(Joo Seng Estate)内的阿裕尼邻里警岗照片,也令人不禁联想到选区划分的荒谬。 他指出,该警岗所在地位于裕盛,以前为马林百列集选区的一部分,但如今被划分在波东巴西内。 “位于裕盛社区的阿裕尼邻里警岗,直至10日前,仍属于芽笼士乃分区,而芽笼士乃则隶属马林百列集选区,如今该区却被划分在波东巴西单选区内。” 他说,“你们就试想一下”。在本届选举,乔立盟代表人民党在波东巴西选区上阵,对垒行动党的司徒宇斌。 对此,许多网友也纷纷按赞表示赞同,截至目前已有567人按赞,346转载,网友也指出自己居住地的选举划分的荒谬。 网友Paul Anthony Virtuosoh : 说真的我不知道为什么我们不能叫阿裕尼,而这个招牌(阿裕尼警岗)就在我家楼下,而且很显然是叫做阿裕尼的地方,到底是什么世界!…

Settling-in Programme (SIP) for new foreigners on work permit

Minister for Manpower, Mr Lim Swee Say announced plans to implement a…

Prof Tommy Koh: What Singapore needs is not sycophants but loving critics and critical lovers

Professor Tommy Koh echoed a common adage that Singapore is a first…