extracted from ST forums.
Maid prostitute case shows basic rights have to be enshrined in
law
I suspect that readers who saw the report on the conviction of an
employer for prostituting her domestic worker ('Fined $15,000 for
pimping her maid', ST Nov 22) would have shaken their heads and
thought 'What next?'
The case once again highlights the vulnerability of domestic
workers who have the misfortune to work for unscrupulous
employers.
The defendant lawyer's claim that the worker was 'a willing party
ready to provide sexual services so that she could make extra
income to repay her debt to her agent' should not go
unchallenged.
Very few women who engage in prostitution do so by free choice.
Many are physically coerced while others are driven by economic or
social circumstances.
In this instance, it was reported that the worker in question was
not physically coerced into prostitution but she may have felt that
she had no choice but to cooperate with her employer.
The burden of a debt that typically takes three to five months for
a domestic worker to pay off before she can start sending money
home to her family weighs heavily on her mind.
She feels under pressure not only to send money as soon as she can
but also to avoid any problems with her employer that might result
in her being sent back home or returned to her agency. This would
have extended her indebtedness.
Many workers in this situation are unwilling to express their true
opinions if they want to go against their employers or reject their
proposals. The choices they make are not free.
These include the choices they make when they seek work and are
told that they will not be employed unless they agree to having no
days off or doing almost anything required by an employer.
A second issue that arises from this case is the role of the
employment agency that provided the worker to the employer. It was
reported that the police acted after it lodged a complaint about
what was going on.
It did the right thing and that is commendable. It kept the agency
on the right side of the law.
Section 23(d) of the Employment Agencies Act states that an agency
licensed under the Act that 'knowingly sends, directs or takes any
girl or woman to any place for immoral purposes or to a place where
she is likely to be morally corrupted, shall be guilty of an
offence.'
Section 24 - (2) stipulates the penalties to which an offending
agency can be subject: 'A licensee or any person who is guilty of
an offence under section 23 (d) shall be liable on conviction to a
fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years or to both.'
In this instance, the agency could legitimately argue that it did
not knowingly send a woman into prostitution, but it must certainly
be the case that once it became aware of her position, it could
have jeopardised its own status if it had not taken the
responsibility to inform the police.
This underlines a point that TWC2 (Transcient Workers Count Too)
has been arguing for some time: basic rights and protection for
domestic workers need to be ensured under the law.
Among these, we have consistently urged for their right to have a
day off each week and a limit on the length of the working day. An
avenue must also be provided for a domestic worker who feels
wronged to seek help and advice.
We have heard the arguments that this is best left to market forces
and that many protective measures for domestic workers are not
practical because the abuses take place in the privacy of people's
homes.
In this case, the legal provisions existed to prevent a form of
abuse and they may well have played a key part in stopping it even
though it occurred within the employer's home.
It may be hard to enforce some provisions but their very existence
help to dispose those who have responsibilities under them to see
that they are implemented.
John Gee
Vice President
Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2)
