Originally posted by
noisylion:
despite this being prob for many years
SG maid abuse still dunt can solve
where is the justice systems?
if this is first world country, is this losing the heart of the
people?
Singapore was confronted with the
horrible spectacle of the worst maid abuse case in its
history.
Muawanatul Chasanah was for nine months regularly
starved, whipped, punched, slapped, kicked, jabbed with sharp
objects and scalded with hot water by her employer, Ng Hua Chye.
She eventually died after a severe beating on Dec 2 last
year.
At her death, the 19-year-old girl - who was 50 kg
when she arrived in Singapore - weighed only 36 kg and had more
than 200 injuries on her body. Ng was originally accused of murder
but the charge was changed to manslaughter. Last week, he was
sentenced to 18 years and six months in jail and six strokes of the
cane. Has the matter ended there? Most people assume so. They can't
be more wrong.
Ng has been found guilty, but he couldn't have
carried out his deeds without the tacit approval, or at least
inaction, of other parties.
Let's consider some facts:
Ng's wife and sister were present at many of the
beatings and did nothing to stop him.
Foreign maids are required to go for six-monthly
checks for pregnancy, VDRL and HIV. During her nine months of
torture, Ms Chasanah had two check-ups. Though her physical
condition and injuries clearly showed she was in deep distress, no
alarm was raised by the doctors and nurses.
Going by a guidebook for employers produced by the
Ministry of Manpower (MOM), it has assumed that heavy punishment,
along with an appeal that such action will 'undermine Singapore's
effort to be a gracious society', is sufficient to check
abuses.
In fact, MOM doesn't seem to believe maids could
actually die from abuse in Singapore. Its guidebook laid out 11
types of abuses ranging from rape to causing bodily harm to
criminal intimidation to wrongful confinement. Death was not
mentioned.
Ms Chasanah may not be the first to die of abuse.
There have been instances of maids jumping to their death, some of
which could be linked to severe physical and psychological
ill-treatment by employers.
Maids seem uninformed of their basic rights as
residents of Singapore, such as protection by the police. Many
maids come from a background which carries with it a natural fear
that the police are working for the rich, and are reluctant to seek
their protection even when the opportunity presents
itself.
Concerned neighbours have become the only check
against abuses for some maids. It was Ms Chasanah's bad luck that
Ng's neighbours either didn't know or didn't care. A Mr Neo told
the Straits Times that even if he knew, he wouldn't report
to the police. 'It's not my business. He (Ng) can do what he wants,
that's his problem. And anyway, God can see,' he was quoted as
saying.
There's a good chance Ms Chasanah's family won't
get a cent from insurance. Employers are required to buy a minimum
$10,000 insurance for maids, benefiting herself or her next of kin.
But this is meant only for accidents in the course of work that led
to death or disability. Insurance agents told BT this probably
won't apply in the case of Ms Chasanah.
So, is the matter of Ms Chasanah
closed?
The answer should be obvious. Two courses of
action must be pursued. The first is to see whether there are other
parties to be punished for helping and abetting the
wrongdoing.
This would deter others who can, but do not, help
the victim. The second is to remedy the system to prevent similar
abuses in the future.
And if Singapore is indeed serious about being a
gracious society, there's also a third course: do something for Ms
Chasanah's family. Punishment is the job of the state and all eyes
will be on the public prosecutor to see whether other parties
involved in Ms Chasanah's abuse and death will be charged. But this
could take some time.
Meanwhile, some steps could be taken immediately
to protect maids. For instance, the government can make it
mandatory for doctors and nurses who conduct regular check-ups to
ask specifically whether they have been hit or beaten and to
identify maids in distress and report the cases to the police.
Agents could also be required to make regular checks on maids
placed by them. Any agent whose placements show a high number of
abuses should have his licence revoked.
Such measures are, of course, not foolproof.
Abuses will continue, no matter what the government does. Some
maids, who owe their agents vast sums (at least to them), might be
too scared to complain. But at least the government would be doing
something on prevention. Given the nature of Singaporeans, this
very fact should go a long way to reduce maid abuse. Singapore, it
has been said, is little more than groups of people tied together
by economic interest. The government is trying hard to change this
impression. Ms Chasanah's case presents a perfect
chance.
To show how a gracious society should behave, the
government can set up a fund - perhaps draw upon the half-a-billion
dollars of maid levies it collects every year - to compensate
abused maids and their families. It need not be a large sum, as
abuse cases are not common. But at least victims, such as the
family of Ms Chasanah, now deprived of a daughter and a
breadwinner, will be able to get something out of the
tragedy.
After all, Singapore has failed Ms Chasanah. Isn't
it only right, now, for the country to give something back to her
loved ones, over and above punishing her
tormentor?
