No need to pay levy once maid's work permit is cancelled
- The Straits Times (27 February 2012) : No need to pay levy once maid's work permit is cancelled
- The Straits Times (18 February 2012) : Maid’s diabetes sparks cost concerns
- The Straits Times (24 February 2012) : Unfair to check maids for diabetes
No need to pay levy once maid's work permit is cancelled
- The Straits Times, 27 February 2012
We refer to the letters by Ms Lydia Wong (“Maid’s diabetes sparks cost concerns”, 18 February) and Mr John Gee (“Unfair to check maids for diabetes”, 24 February).
As Mr Gee pointed out, having diabetes does not, by itself, render a person unfit for work. When Ms Wong’s Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) first came to Singapore to work a year ago, she was certified by a medical doctor to be fit for work. In any event, no abnormal sugar level readings were found in her urine.
Our records show that the FDW was subsequently transferred to two other employers by the same employment agency that recruited the FDW. Ms Wong was the third employer of the FDW.
The Ministry agrees with Mr Gee on the service standards that responsible employment agencies should provide. The employment agency involved in this situation should have given Ms Wong prior warning, if the agency had reason to believe that the FDW had health issues that could affect her work. This would then enable the employer to make an informed decision. We understand both Ms Wong and her employment agency have since worked out an amicable settlement.
We also wish to clarify that an employer will not need to pay the levy once the FDW’s Work Permit is cancelled. Ms Wong has been informed of this. We will also consider waiving her levy for the period that the FDW was unfit for work, if she can provide medical evidence to support this.
Maid’s diabetes sparks cost concerns
- The Straits Times, 18 February 2012
Last month, my siblings and I hired a Filipino maid to look after our elderly mother but after less than a month, she fell ill. The doctor discovered that she was suffering from severe diabetes and directed us to admit her to the accident and emergency department of a hospital, or let her rest at home.
The maid agency shrugged off responsibility, saying diabetes was not included in the mandatory pre-employment medical examination for maids. While an employer must bear the medical costs when a maid falls ill, mine had the condition before she began to work for us. Shouldn't an agency ensure that a maid comes to an employer healthy and able to work?
The agency then told me that the maid must bear the cost of her illness, and now the maid wants to go home, which is a pity as she is hard-working and responsible and cared for my mother well.
Apart from the worry over the absence of a caregiver while we wait for a new maid, why must we pay the maid levy while waiting for her repatriation? Can't the levy be waived and an employer exempted from being blacklisted in such cases?
Who is responsible for the medical costs and shouldn't diabetes be included in the pre-employment medical examination?
Unfair to check maids for diabetes
- The Straits Times, 24 February 2012
MADAM Lydia Wong ("Maid's diabetes sparks cost concerns"; last Saturday) has cause for complaint, having hired a maid in good faith only to find that severe diabetes rendered her unable to work after less than a month.
When a worker is incapacitated, it makes sense that an employer should not have to pay the levy. Madam Wong's comment that an agency should ensure that a maid is healthy enough to work before she is placed is fair.
The agency may well have done the legal minimum, but decent service means going further, and making sure that reasonable customer requirements are met; one of which is to ensure that a maid can do the job. However, there are reasons why it might be problematic to treat diabetes as one of the conditions to be checked in the pre-employment medical examination.
Most diabetics cope well. Their condition is a personal nuisance but does not interfere with their work. It would be unfair if this relatively common condition is ruled as an obstacle to employment.
In the case of Madam Wong's maid, it would seem that it was the severity of her diabetes that was the problem.