Written Answer to PQ on MDWs moonlighting and participating in HSS and take-up of HSS
NOTICE PAPER NO. 61 OF 2025 FOR SITTING AND NO. 15 OF 2025 FOR
SITTING ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2025
QUESTION NO. 49 FOR ORAL ANSWER
MP: Ms Yeo Wan Ling
To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) in each of the past five years, how many migrant domestic workers and unofficial employers have been fined for illegal moonlighting; and (b) what is the take-up rate of the Household Services Scheme since its permanent formalisation in 2021.
QUESTION NO. 110 FOR ORAL ANSWER
MP: Mr Shawn Loh
To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has assessed outcomes of the Household Services Scheme, including take-up rate, affordability of pricing, ease of use, and sufficiency to meet market demand; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered allowing part-time participation of the Household Services Scheme by migrant domestic workers to increase labour supply without increasing migrant worker numbers.
Answer:
Between 2020 and 2024, an average of 12 Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) and 15 employers were fined each year for moonlighting related offences.
2 The Household Services Scheme (HSS) allows companies to hire migrant workers to provide part-time domestic services such as home cleaning, grocery shopping, car-washing and pet-sitting. Since formalising the HSS as a permanent scheme in 2021, the number of HSS companies increased from around 80 to 240 today. Based on surveys, the number of households served by HSS companies have also increased steadily.
3 MOM supports companies offering HSS services through quota and source country concessions for migrant workers and the companies determine the prices of their services based on market demand and types of services provided. HSS companies benefit from additional work permit quota above the prevailing Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) for the services sector. As there has been a steady growth of HSS companies over the past years, there is sufficient choice for consumers and no impetus currently to consider government interventions on the prices of such services.
4 We recognise the manpower benefits of foreign workers working for multiple households for greater efficiencies. Hence, we support schemes such as HSS, as well as the Shared Stay-in Senior Care Services Sandbox, which allows workers to be deployed across households with additional foreign worker quota and source relaxations. Under such schemes, workers only have one employer, for clear accountability over the worker’s welfare. This better safeguards the interests of both workers and employers. For example, if MDWs are allowed to concurrently work for HSS companies and sustain an injury, it would be hard to determine the proportion of liability to be borne between multiple employers.
5 Furthermore, once we allow migrant workers to work for multiple employers, it will be difficult to prevent them from moonlighting illegally, which will undermine the integrity of the work pass framework and affect business prospects of law-abiding companies, as well as our local workers’ employment outcomes.