I REFER to last Saturday's special report on why Indonesian domestic workers are giving Singapore a miss ("Behind the crunch").
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) was quoted as saying that the domestic worker levy is meant to moderate the "demand and inflow" of foreign domestic workers and "ensures that only employers who need and have the financial capability to hire a foreign domestic worker are able to do so" ("No plans to change eligibility criteria, says MOM").
To illustrate the need for the levy, statistics were cited showing a significantly higher number of maids per household here compared to Hong Kong.
With maids' salaries increasing as foreign governments impose minimum wages, would not the policy objective be similarly achieved when market forces require employers to pay higher wages? If so, can the levy remain justified, especially when it effectively deters or even prevents employers from paying higher wages?
The unfortunate (and perhaps unintended) consequence is that money meant to compensate maids for their sacrifices, such as being separated from their families for extended periods, is instead diverted towards paying the levy.
This also does not square with MOM's other objective of ensuring a quality supply, since competent and experienced maids will inevitably prefer to work in countries that guarantee higher wages.
It appears unrealistic to impose minimum eligibility requirements and stringent entry tests, and at the same time expect maids to accept lower salaries.
Hong Kong seems to have no trouble keeping maid numbers lower without a levy and yet attract quality supply with significantly higher wages. Perhaps it is time for MOM to rethink this issue.
Jiang Ke-Yue