Employment agencies must act responsibly in their duties

We refer to the letters from Mdm Thong (Call to strengthen accountability system for migrant domestic worker agencies’ professional conduct, 19 Sep) and Mdm Liu (Who safeguards the rights of employers of domestic helpers?, 23 Sep). We thank them for sharing their concerns and have reached out to both for more information regarding their experiences.

All employment agencies (EAs) in Singapore are licensed and regulated under the Employment Agencies Act (EAA). EAs must provide accurate information about migrant domestic workers (MDWs), such as their employment history to prospective employers upon request.

To ensure that EAs take ownership in facilitating good matches, they are required to provide a refund of at least 50% of the service fees paid by the employer if the MDW’s employment is terminated within the first six months of employment. This refund applies when certain conditions are met, including that employers must notify the EA before repatriation and they must not have committed an offence against the MDW. EAs must also seek consent from the employer before they can transfer the MDW to another employer; the transfer of the MDW cannot be imposed as a condition for this refund. If there is an outstanding placement loan, employers should refer to their EA contract for the refund terms.

Employers can register via the employer reference channel to provide feedback on their former MDWs, helping prospective employers make informed hiring decisions. Prospective employers can contact these employers to better understand the conduct, character or work performance of the MDW they intend to hire. Employers can also provide feedback on their EAs or report any suspected falsification of documents via MOM’s online feedback form.

MOM takes a serious view of EAs that do not act responsibly or in accordance with regulations, and will not hesitate to take enforcement actions against them, which may include fines, demerit points, and licence suspension or revocation. We will continue to review the adequacy of safeguards for employers and MDWs, and work closely with the EA industry to uphold high standards of service.

Liang Yahui

Director (Operations and Licensing)

Foreign Manpower Management Division

Ministry of Manpower

Call to strengthen accountability system for MDWs agencies’ professional conduct, 19 Sep 2025, Lianhe Zaobao

I hope to express my views through "LHZB Talk” on the lack of regulation in the local MDWs agency industry, in order to draw attention from relevant authorities and the general public.

I recently experienced firsthand the unprofessional conduct of a MDWs agency. This agency attempted to transfer my former MDW, who had a record of misconduct, to an unsuspecting employer. This MDW was extremely irresponsible - for example, she left my mobility-impaired mother to walk around a shopping mall alone, and after losing her keys, she actually left both the main door and gate wide open when she went out on her rest day. I felt the situation was serious and immediately intervened to stop this arrangement, taking the initiative to handle the helper's repatriation procedures myself.

This incident reflects that the MDWs agency industry urgently needs stricter regulation and accountability mechanisms. Employers have the right to receive completely transparent services and should be protected from such unethical operations. I earnestly request that the MOM and relevant regulatory bodies take action to strictly enforce industry standards and prevent similar incidents from recurring.

Tang Lizhen (transliteration)

Who safeguards the rights of employers of domestic helpers?, 23 Sep 2025, Lianhe Zaobao

After reading the letter by reader Tang Lizhen, “Calling for Strengthening the Accountability System for MDW Agencies’ Conduct”  published on LHZB Talk on 17 Sep, I felt a deep sense of empathy.

I know of an employer whose MDW, after only two months on the job, stole several hundred dollars and valuable clothing from her employer. Her methods were skilled and practised. When exposed, she not only showed no remorse but preemptively filed a complaint with MOM, accusing her employer of mistreatment. After an investigation, MOM dismissed her false accusations. 

The employer believed this MDW was of bad character, and that her age and work experience were falsified. Wishing to prevent her from harming another employer, he wanted to repatriate her. The MDW agency, however, forced the employer to send the maid back to them so they could pass her on to another unsuspecting employer. The MDW brazenly claimed that the agency had told her the employer dared not send her home, or they would withhold the one-time placement fee the employer had advanced.

Sure enough, when the employer bought a plane ticket to send her away, the agency refused to refund the more than $2,000 the employer had prepaid for her. MOM was at a loss as to how to deal with such unscrupulous agencies. 

Regarding problematic MDWs, some unscrupulous agencies care only about money—every reassignment earns them another fee, with no regard for conscience or professional ethics. I have noticed in the media that many employers have had similar experiences. After a problematic MDW is sent away, she simply obtains another fake resume and soon returns to Singapore. The agency profits without loss; the employer is left to suffer. 

For MDWs who have already broken the law, shouldn’t MOM clearly establish relevant industry regulations and strictly prohibit unscrupulous agencies from reassigning them?

Liu Juan