.png)
In the West, to have a maid or a helper would suggest great familial wealth, though this is not the case in Southeast Asia. To have a maid – more respectfully called an ‘amah’- is not uncommon. The economic disparity amongst countries in the region has stimulated transnational labour mobility, as most female domestic workers (FDWs) come from Indonesia and the Philippines migrating to more developed countries. This feminization of labour and the value of the care economy to households in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei is undeniable. However, a question which is not so often asked is: how are these FDWs in search of a better life, treated?
Check out this Ted Talk that talks about the human impact of FDWs
There is an unspoken rule in parts of Southeast Asia, that when you have a child, you get a maid. Paying someone a monthly wage of $439 is highly affordable. To put it into perspective, the minimum wage for a cleaner job is $878. So why are FDWs in Southeast Asia in such high demand? Firstly, many of the more developed countries, most notably Singapore, are dependent on migrant workers to enter the domestic sector of the economy, which is not favoured by locals. With this comes accepting wages well below the national norm, “their temporary status, limited resources and unfamiliarity with legislation creates a pool of low cost, compliant labour” . This also enables dual-career households as mothers are now able to participate in the workforce. A study has suggested that FDWs in Singapore and Hong Kong helped raise the income of low-skilled workers by 3.9 percent which contributed to a 1.2 percent boost in the overall economy. Furthermore, in the West, we so often hear of the ‘double burden’, out of necessity, women are required to earn money whilst still being the primary homemaker- this is not the case with those who have a maid. Mothers are able to go to work without having to stress about picking up their children or cooking a meal after a long day in the office.
The knee-jerk reaction from locals with a high number of transient foreign workers is an irrational fear that FDWs cost locals their jobs, depress local wages and are prone to criminal activity. All of which colours the perception of their social and political position in a host country. The irony of this is that FDWs promote rapid growth as employees within a household. In Hong Kong, for instance, FDWs added $12.6 billion to the economy in 2019. There are many ways in which FDWs contribute to an economy, from an increase in labour force participation to enabling job creation in related sectors such as recruitment agencies, training centres and remittance services. Like all earners, FDWs spend their earnings on goods and services creating a multiplier effect (an infusion of capital that snowballs onto other economic activity). It is not only the host country that benefits from FDWs; remittances that are sent back to their home countries help ensure familial security and development. Additionally, Remittances are a vital source of foreign exchange earnings, which can help improve a country’s balance of payments and strengthen its currency. This economic pragmatism highlights why concerns of rights remain on the periphery or entirely absent- why ought we concern ourselves with the morality of migrants when they benefit both parties?
It is not just the fact that so many FDWs are part of the informal economy, it is also the nature of domestic work that makes them vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Agencies merely contract maids with employers, but once this is signed what goes on behind closed doors is out of their control. An employer could have a maid work 24 hours of the day and no one would know. With that said an argument that is often put forward as to why FDWs do not come under the Employment Act in Singapore is because the employment of domestic labour is a private contract between maid and employer. It contends that it "prefers to leave the free market to determine the wages and other conditions of service for foreign maids because it is too impractical to impose standard terms" {The Straits Times, February 2, 1988). As it is too difficult to differentiate hours spent doing chores for an employer as opposed to their personal ones. Yet the lack of legislation around employing FDWs is appalling. Eighteen percent of FDWs in Hong Kong admit to not having a bank account, whilst some 83 percent admit to being in debt. Most concerningly, the stereotype that housework is not real work that contributes to a country’s economy is the most damaging. Often, migrants are categorised by host societies into two groups: the "desired," who are talented individuals seen as adding economic value and are more likely to be granted citizenship, and the "necessary," who perform low-status jobs but are unlikely to receive citizenship due to their lack of academic and professional qualifications.
It is clear that female domestic workers are economically beneficial for host and home countries. Yet, more often than not, the household work that they perform is greatly undervalued. This status of FDWs as lowly people with very few political rights, coupled with a lack of legislation around their employment, encourages their exploitation.
Comments