Employers not expected to cover MDWs’ medical treatment costs incurred overseas

We refer to the letter “Who pays for medical costs of domestic helpers injured overseas?” (Dec 31) and thank Ms Ng Sout San for sharing her concerns.

Employers have an important responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) while they are in Singapore. Medical emergencies can be distressing for anyone, and we understand that both employers and workers want clarity about their legal liabilities.

In Singapore, employers can have peace of mind knowing that the compulsory medical insurance that they purchase for their MDWs, with its annual claim limit of at least $60,000 per year, covers an estimated 99 per cent of inpatient bills. When MDWs travel overseas on their rest days or home leave, medical treatment abroad would fall outside the scope of an employer’s liability, and employers are not expected to cover it.

We encourage employers to have open communication with their MDWs and discuss rest day arrangements. They should advise their MDWs on the necessary precautions to take when making personal trips overseas, including purchasing travel insurance and establishing emergency contact procedures.

Doris Kuek
Director, Foreign Manpower Management Policy
Workplace Policy and Strategy Division

Ministry of Manpower

Who pays for medical costs of domestic helpers injured overseas?

My foreign domestic worker (FDW) recently informed me that she plans to travel to Johor Bahru with friends on her rest days. Such trips have become common among FDWs, much like Singaporeans crossing the Causeway for leisure or errands.

However, this raises practical and legal concerns for employers. A friend shared that her helper was involved in an accident in Johor Bahru. Fortunately, her injuries were minor, and the employer paid for the medical expenses upon her return.

Under Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regulations, employers are responsible for the medical care and welfare of their FDWs during the period of employment.

Yet, compulsory medical insurance does not cover treatment outside Singapore. This creates uncertainty: If an FDW is injured overseas, who is accountable for the medical costs? Are employers expected to arrange and pay for repatriation if serious injuries occur?

More serious scenarios also deserve attention. What if an FDW is hospitalised for an extended period overseas, or cannot be reached? Employers have limited control once helpers leave Singapore, yet may still face moral, financial or legal responsibility.

While FDWs are rightly entitled to rest days and freedom of movement, employers also need clarity and protection. Perhaps MOM could provide clearer guidelines on overseas travel, including recommended safety measures, guidance on liability, and optional travel insurance.

Balanced policies would allow FDWs to enjoy their time off safely while giving employers certainty and peace of mind in fulfilling their responsibilities.

Ng Sout San