Following a recent report published by Al
Jazeera on June 27, the Filipino government has taken steps to protect the
welfare of its domestic workers in Singapore.
It took
action against two agencies in particular – Homekeeper and Budget Maid – which
have been temporarily suspended from recruiting Filipino domestic workers.
The
actions against Homekeeper and Budget Maid stem from a misinterpretation of the
Al Jazeera report. The article suggested that “some” agencies “display women at
work” in a manner that might have been degrading, and that there had been some
complaints of women being poorly treated at certain agencies. However, it did
not specifically accuse Homekeeper and Budget Maid of mistreating their
employees.
Another
aspect of the report – the practice of “live-training” at shopping centers –
has been downplayed by various groups.
In an
article published on July 3 in ‘Today’, a Singaporean daily, the Association of
Employment Agencies (AEAS) dismissed suggestions that domestic workers were
being displayed inappropriately.
The
‘Today’ article also referred to a spokesperson from Singapore’s Ministry of
Manpower (MOM), who visited both shopping centers mentioned in the report but
did not “find any inappropriate displays” of domestic workers.
This
article responds to those claims by reiterating some of the main points of the
Al Jazeera report.
“Live-training”
At
Katong Shopping Centre, RUOM documented a domestic worker pushing her colleague
in a wheelchair in front of her employment agency. She was, apparently,
feigning to take care of an elderly person. This was done in full public
display. Similar practices were observed at Bukit Timah Shopping Centre.
The two
domestic workers were members of “United Channel”, an employment agency in
Singapore. At the entrance to the agency, a prominent sign advertises the
company’s business. It “specialise[s] in Myanmar [Burma] maids” and domestic
workers from Indonesia.
In
addition, it offers a “discount” of “up to $500” and displays what it calls
“live” training. Inside the agency, women can be seen tending to baby dolls and
ironing clothes.
Channel
NewsAsia spoke to a representative from United Channel on July 2. “I don’t
think we are displaying them here,” the representative said, before adding: “So
far the feedback we are getting from employees is very positive, and so far the
maids here doing training they are happy.”
Significantly,
the Channel NewsAsia report did not interview any of the domestic workers at
the employment agency. This omission is troubling. The experience of domestic
workers is arguably the most important part of this story, and it is critical
that their views are taken into account.
It
cannot be taken for granted that the employment agency accurately represents
their views. On certain occasions, indeed, this is precisely what must be
questioned.
Social media response
The Al
Jazeera article generated much commentary on Facebook groups popular with
domestic workers. The responses posted on July 2 on ANISYA and SHEG – two
organisations which further the cause of migrant workers’ rights – are
particularly worth noting. Some women praise agencies where they have had
positive experiences, while others criticize, in strong terms, their treatment
at the hand of employment agencies.
The
responses are mostly negative and highlight a number of issues. Some women
claim that they were not given enough food by employment agencies, while others
say they were not properly accommodated. One woman recalls sleeping in a
kitchen and claims that she was made to “do all the cleaning” at the house of
her agent.
While
some respondents remember their agencies being “kind” and “very good”, three
respondents on the ANISYA website recalled the feeling of being treated like
“slaves”.
One
domestic worker remembers “bargaining myself to get [a] new employer”. She was
referring to her time at a shopping mall as a “transfer” maid.
Training vs. “Live-training”
Before
coming to Singapore all domestic workers undergo mandatory training in their
home countries. In Indonesia, for instance, training takes 600 hours to
complete. At centers women not only learn basic skills such as cooking, ironing
and cleaning, but are also trained in the care of infants and elderly people.
“Live-training”
in Singaporean shopping malls might therefore seem superfluous for many of
these domestic workers. It may also give the impression that women are learning
new skills, when in fact they are repeating skills they already have.
The Al
Jazeera report suggested that this practice was a particularly degrading
experience for many women. Not only was the work repetitive and monotonous, it
was also conducted in public view.
In the
‘Today’ article, the AEAS defended this practice, and characterized the rooms
as facilities for “training”. The Ministry of Manpower was quoted as saying the
practices were not “unreasonable”.
Upon
coming to Singapore many domestic workers benefit from learning about cultural
differences in the country and safe methods for performing household work.
These forms of training are important and necessary, and are provided by many
agencies in private settings.
But
NGOs say that “live-training” in public areas is a source of concern.
“In one
agency at Bukit Timah Shopping Centre,” Jolovan Wham of HOME wrote in an email,
“the women take turns to clean the office the whole day, to create the image
that they are hardworking and productive.”
Shelley
Thio at TWC2 went so far as to say the “live-training is a form of abuse”. She
said that some agencies put up “notices and sign boards that display sexist and
degrading language, carrying such words as “fresh” maids, “first-timers”, [and]
“free replacement maids”.
She
mentioned the humiliating experience of being “put on display”, and added that
“some agencies make the women cut their long hair, to make them look
unattractive”.
The
“discrimination is both classist and patriarchal,” she said.
When
Ummai Ummairoh, a domestic worker interviewed in the original report, said that
some women are made to “look like dolls at a supermarket”, she articulated an
experience of objectification – of being seen, appraised, and evaluated. This
is a different narrative from that of the employment agencies which say the
women are “happy” in “doing [this] training”.
The
environment of these malls – the signs, the language, the “live-training” – is
part of a culture in which many domestic workers are objectified.
And
it’s a culture that’s replicated on some agency websites such as “Frondosa
City”, which advertises its domestic workers thus: “Myanmar people are shy and
docile by nature, they are rarely aggressive but may pride themselves on
certain areas more than others.”
“Any
business person has the right to offer a discount,” AEAS president Ms K
Jayaprema was quoted as saying in ‘Today’ on July 3. The thrust of the Al
Jazeera article was not to question this but to highlight the manner in which
particular promotional offers are made.
“Labor
is not a commodity,” the Declaration of Philadelphia emphatically stated in
1944, outlining a cornerstone belief of the International Labor Organization.
It also outlined a vision in which “human beings, irrespective of race, creed
or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their
spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity.”
Business & Investment Opportunities
Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd (SBC) is incorporated
in Singapore since 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment