Following the last piece of news that my former maid has run away from the Indonesian embassy after running away from my house one fine afternoon in June, there had been no news of her until last weekend.
I received a call from the Woodlands Police Centre informing me that she has been found. The police officer was rather concerned when he called me, and the first thing he asked me was whether I had forfeited the S$5,000 security bond. Incidentally, I had just drafted and sent an appeal to Ministry of Manpower 2 days before this. MOM was about to take action to demand my insurance company to pay out the sum of money.
Having treated my domestic worker rather well during her employment with us, I do not feel it is fair to me as an innocent employer, who has contributed little to this girl’s decision to venture off elsewhere, not fulfilling her obligations, leaving us worried, anxious, thrown into pandemonium, and still, ultimately, having to pay for what she has done on a whim, financially, emotionally, physically and psychologically. We had been victimized throughout this whole affair, and now I have to shell out more money to pay for someone else’s crime? This just doesn’t make sense.
This morning, I received a call from an officer from MOM, who has read my appeal email. She said I will have to pay up an overstaying fine on behalf of this maid. I think I almost lost it there. I referred her to the maid agency, which has undertaken to repatriate the girl, and would be liaising with the police. Why can’t the police charge her? She was found at the Woodlands checkpoint and detained by the police there. Isn’t this clearly indicative of her criminal intent? She wanted to cross over to JB. How she had survived for almost 2 months here in Singapore is a marvel, and we really wonder how much cash she may have pilfered from us, or she may have an accomplice, or found some other source of income somewhere, somehow.
Why should I, as a innocent employer with proper intention to hire a domestic helper, pay for an ill-intent this employee had? Just because the security bond says so? I believe the security bond was conceived to deter potential maid abusers so that they will have to pay for their wrong-doings when their domestic workers cannot tolerate further abuses. Then, where is the protection for good-intentioned employers? The average citizen who needed a little extra help at home, and has paid for such arrangement fairly?
This girl clearly is a criminal now. So if I will have to be responsible for her own wrongdoing, which I had no part of, i.e. pay overstaying fine or other what-have-you fines or charges for her when she’d decided to run away on her own agenda, does it mean I’ll have to pay bail for her if she were to kill someone, rob a bank, etc etc?
Sometimes I find government policy implementers ridiculous. Just like how we aren’t even allowed to drink any sip of water on MRTs these days. Singapore will probably be world-famous for yet another reason besides the chewing gum issue in time to come.