I REFER to last Saturday's special report on why Indonesian
domestic workers are giving Singapore a miss ("Behind the
crunch").
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) was quoted as saying that the
domestic worker levy is meant to moderate the "demand and inflow"
of foreign domestic workers and "ensures that only employers who
need and have the financial capability to hire a foreign domestic
worker are able to do so" ("No plans to change eligibility
criteria, says MOM").
To illustrate the need for the levy, statistics were cited
showing a significantly higher number of maids per household here
compared to Hong Kong.
With maids' salaries increasing as foreign governments impose
minimum wages, would not the policy objective be similarly achieved
when market forces require employers to pay higher wages? If so,
can the levy remain justified, especially when it effectively
deters or even prevents employers from paying higher wages?
The unfortunate (and perhaps unintended) consequence is that
money meant to compensate maids for their sacrifices, such as being
separated from their families for extended periods, is instead
diverted towards paying the levy.
This also does not square with MOM's other objective of ensuring
a quality supply, since competent and experienced maids will
inevitably prefer to work in countries that guarantee higher
wages.
It appears unrealistic to impose minimum eligibility
requirements and stringent entry tests, and at the same time expect
maids to accept lower salaries.
Hong Kong seems to have no trouble keeping maid numbers lower
without a levy and yet attract quality supply with significantly
higher wages. Perhaps it is time for MOM to rethink this issue.
Jiang Ke-Yue