|
<<previous | index | next>> Workplace Abuses in SingaporeIt is $588 [U.S.$347] for an Indonesian, $598 [U.S.$353] for a Filipina. You want a Filipina because she speaks English. For Filipinas there is usually a six, seven month salary deduction [debt payment], for Indonesians there is eight months deduction. Filipinas need a day off once a month, Indonesians don’t need a day off. The salary for Filipinas is S$320 [U.S.$189] per month, for Indonesians, 280 [U.S.$165] per month. You get one replacement free, three months for a Filipina, six months for an Indonesian. DeathsAnother foreign domestic worker fell from the fourth storey while hanging out the laundry on Tuesday. She was taken to the Changi General Hospital. A hospital spokesman said she was still in intensive care but was “stable and conscious.” The maid, an Indonesian in her 30s, was said to have fallen head first out of her employer's Tampines flat around 6:40 a.m. Between 1999 and 2005, at least 147 migrant domestic workers died from workplace accidents or suicide, most by jumping or falling from residential buildings. Of these, 122 were Indonesian domestic workers who jumped or fell to their deaths.104 One Sri Lankan domestic worker jumped to her death in September 2005.105 Information provided by the Philippines embassy did not specify whether any deaths of Filipina domestic workers were due to falling from a height, but noted that between 2001 and 2005, fifteen Filipina domestic workers died from workplace accidents and nine from suicide.106 Although there are no directly comparable statistics, the Indonesian consulate in Hong Kong reported that thirty-two domestic workers died in Hong Kong between 2003 and June 2005 for reasons including illness, accidents, and suicides. Of these, they classified seventeen as suicides.107 In the same period, forty-three Indonesian domestic workers in Singapore died by falling from buildings. These differences are particularly striking given Singapore employs approximately 60,000 Indonesian domestic workers while Hong Kong employs more than 90,000 Indonesian domestic workers.108 Interviews with government officials, embassy officials, aid organizations, domestic workers, and employment agents suggest that causes of these falls likely include suicide and hazardous workplace conditions. Isolation at the workplace, excessive work demands, employer abuse, and financial pressures are all factors that may contribute to anxiety and depression. Human Rights Watch interviewed a domestic worker who had attempted suicide after suffering poor working conditions and feeling she had no alternatives for escape. She said: I was afraid if I ran away, I would be caught by the police. Madam often got angry with me, complained to the agency, and the agency also got angry with me. The agent asked “What do you want?” I said, “I want to die, ma’am, because the people here are cruel, everything I do is wrong, I’m always called idiot and stupid.” [It got so bad,] I really didn’t know what to do, so I drank poison for rats and cockroaches. I lost consciousness, and Madam brought me to the hospital…. The police told me it was wrong to try suicide. When the incident happened, I had been working exactly seven months. I had earned S$90 [U.S.$53].109 In the case of the Sri Lankan domestic worker who fell to her death, a spokesperson from the High Commission said, “The case is still an open verdict. But apparently she had kept a diary and she was very unhappy with her work conditions.”110 The threat of repatriation before they repay their debts or earn adequate money to support their families may also fuel panic and anxiety among domestic workers. In one domestic worker’s case seen by a service organization, “The employer wanted to send her home. She took a knife to herself [attempted suicide] because she wanted to finish her [two-year] contract…. She didn’t want to go back to the agent. She had worked for one year and five months. In the end, she returned to the agent.”111 Hazardous workplace conditions include being forced to clean the outside of windows from precarious ledges or to hang wet clothes from bamboo poles out of high windows from unsafe positions. An official from the Sri Lankan High Commission described one case in which a domestic worker was injured but did not die: “One girl fell over, about three years ago. She stood on the kitchen ledge. She slipped and fell four floors…. Employers scream if windows are not shining. She was in the hospital for two months.”112 Ministry of Manpower officials told us that when they receive news of a fall, a “team goes to investigate cases. In one case a FDW [foreign domestic worker] fell to death while hanging clothes. The employer was responsible for endangering the safety of the FDW. It was in an area not meant for public access—a ledge with a low parapet.”113 In an interview with Human Rights Watch, Ministry of Manpower representatives discussed the government’s assessment of the cause of the deaths and their strategies for overcoming these problems: There are two main causes. The first is safety. We are implementing a massive exercise, telling employers, “you are responsible for the safety of domestic workers,” through education, pamphlets…. The second is that FDWs [foreign domestic workers] commit suicide. We are teaching employers and educating EAs [employment agents] the signs to look for.114 The results of investigations into a domestic worker’s death or fall, and the ensuing classification of the incident as an accident or suicide carry consequences for a domestic worker’s family. Compensation for falls deemed to be accidents may result in payments up to S$10,000 [U.S.$5,900] under the personal injury insurance that employers are required to buy for domestic workers. No compensation is offered in cases of suicide, and as the woman quoted above suggests, women who attempt suicide face possible criminal prosecution. These cases are often difficult to investigate because the worker may have been home alone at the time of the fall, or there are no witnesses to corroborate or contradict employers’ versions of events. An employment agent told us about a case in which one of the domestic workers she had placed died. She said, “I had a death. She fell from the twenty-second floor, she just flew off the window…. She was very young, sweet.” 115 The investigation did not produce conclusive results on the cause of death, and at the time of the interview, the family had received no compensation. In another case, a domestic worker suffered extreme financial hardship as a result of her fall. She fell three stories when hanging laundry, incurring spinal injuries and several broken bones. She was not able to walk ten months after the accident. Although the personal injury insurance paid for her initial hospital bill, her family has had to pay for subsequent medical care.116 Forced Confinement, Unpaid Wages, and Exorbitant Debt PaymentsForced Confinement and Restricted CommunicationThe house was locked. I stayed in the house always. I was worried, if there is a fire, I don’t have the key. What should I do, jump from the window?.... My employer didn’t know I had a handphone, I always hid it in my clothing. She threw all my numbers, addresses in the garbage, my notebook. She tore it and threw it away…. At my employer’s house, I couldn’t talk [covers her mouth]. Human Rights Watch interviewed twenty-nine domestic workers who had been forbidden from leaving their apartments alone and who had limited opportunity to use the phone, speak to neighbors, or even write letters. One woman, Kartini Saptono, told us: “I can write letters but I can’t make phone calls, I have to do it in secret. I’m not allowed to have a boyfriend. My employer wouldn’t like it, she would send me back to Indonesia.”117 The S$5,000 [U.S.$2,950] security bond paid by employers of foreign domestic workers to the government, in combination with employers’ fears of domestic workers running away, meeting boyfriends, becoming pregnant, or stealing household items contributes to many employers placing tight restrictions on their maid’s mobility and communication with others.118 The vast majority of migrant domestic workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch did not hold their own passports or even know where it was. Others did not keep their work permits in their own possession, in violation of immigration regulations. Typically, an employment agent might take a worker’s passport from her at the airport, use it to collect the work permit, and then either keep it or pass it to the worker’s employer directly. Although employers and agents often say they are retaining the passport for safekeeping, domestic workers sometimes are not able to obtain their passport, work permit, or other important documents even on request—further restricting their freedom of movement. As with the other abuses documented here, confiscation of passports and work authorization documents compounds restrictions on workers’ movements. One domestic worker said, “They said I can’t talk to others. I was not allowed to speak with other people or speak in Bahasa Indonesia. My employers held my passport and work permit.”119 Milagros Baluyot, a Filipina domestic worker told us, “I should be able to keep my passport, but he [my employer] took it from me because he said he cannot trust me. He even has my work permit.”120 When an employer holds a domestic worker’s work permit, he or she violates the work permit regulations and is subject to penalties and prosecution. Many domestic workers are forbidden from leaving the workplace unless they are in the company of their employer or, for those who are so lucky, on days off. Some domestic workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported being locked in their workplace from the outside. More commonly, domestic workers reported that their employers discouraged or prohibited them from talking to neighbors, other domestic workers, or to friends on the phone. Many employment agents and employers justified these practices. One agent said, “Poor people can abuse the employer. The employer puts up the security bond. If the maid runs away or does some nasty thing, the employer loses a lot of money.”121 As Lilia Jornadal said, “I was not allowed to go out, or to talk to the neighbors. They didn’t want me to talk to other maids.”122 Agents and employers often prohibit or discourage domestic workers from developing friendships with neighbors or other migrant workers, regardless of whether these relationships are formed during working hours or not. One agent explained, “I’m against maids having friends. When they go down to the playground, they talk. An employer doesn’t want her maid to have friends, they leave their house to the maid, they don’t know if the friends are good or bad. They leave their small babies with them.”123 Underlying these tight restrictions on freedom of movement and association is a lack of trust as well as an attitude that infantilizes grown women. In one case, Tirtawati, a thirty-year-old domestic worker said, “My employers sent the children to school. They didn’t trust me to take the child. They locked the gate when they left.”124 Employers expressed doubt about the ability of their maids to make good decisions regarding making friends, having a boyfriend, or saving money. A man working for a company providing insurance to employers of domestic workers protested against the restrictions on domestic workers’ movements, saying: In my opinion we are all human beings. To leave the house, it is a basic human need. There is not a single case where it should be a problem. [If she becomes pregnant,] you send her home or get an abortion. It is a dumb excuse to keep maids in because of that, or to lock them in the house. I know one Sri Lankan’s employer padlocked food in the house, and she could not go out of the house, until the neighbors complained.125 Another agent conceded that employers sometimes resort to extreme confinement measures: “Some employers take it too harshly. The [maid] can’t look out of the window…. It gets absurd. They assume she is planning suicide.”126 Almost all of the domestic workers that Human Rights Watch interviewed were required to obtain permission to leave the household where they worked. Many domestic workers were not allowed out of the apartment unless they were in the company of their employer, even to go to the market. Some employers locked the phone so domestic workers could not use it during the day.127 Despite having worked in Singapore for several years, a forty-two-year-old domestic worker said, “Monday through Saturday, [when my employers are at work,] I cannot go to the market, just downstairs. If we are all together, they let me take a walk with them. If they are at home, I cannot come down even if my work is finished.128 In other situations, employers deny domestic workers their right to leave their jobs. Human Rights Watch interviewed several women who wanted to return home or to change employers but were unable to because their employers forbade them from contacting their agent, withheld their salary, or restricted their movements and communication. In some circumstances described in this report these situations may amount to forced labor. One woman said: After my mother passed away, I asked for money [from my savings] for the funeral. The employer kept saying the money is safe in the bank, why are you asking? I said if you don’t want to pay my salary, I want to go back. My mother passed away, I wanted to go back. My employer scolded me, “Your mother already died. She is already in the graveyard, why do you want to go back?”129 We interviewed Adelyn Malana, a twenty-two-year-old Filipina domestic worker awaiting a transfer so she could continue paying off her debt before returning home. She said: I said I’m not happy. I’m not happy in this house, I want to go back to my agent. My employer said no. I cried. I wanted to work, but this situation was not good…. Every day there was no change, so I asked her, can you send me back?.... She didn’t want me to change [employers], she would get very angry…. I want to work, pay my debts and earn enough to go home.130 Faith-based organizations and other service-providers also reported handling several complaints of virtual imprisonment in the home. One service provider told us: We know girls in need of help, they can’t come out [of the workplace] …. They call seeking help, sometimes through writing. They are so controlled in their moves. They contact us be it through letters, neighbors, whatever channels they can.131 In a case similar to others documented by Human Rights Watch, Ani Khadijah said, “They would lock me inside the house with the baby. I was not allowed to make phone calls or send letters to my family. I wasn’t allowed to say anything or talk to the neighbors, I had to just keep quiet.”132 One domestic worker’s employer repeatedly threatened to repatriate her if she talked to the neighbors or left the apartment. The consequences for domestic workers who defy their employers’ restrictions may be swift. After working for four months, and hungry from a lack of food, one domestic worker forbidden from leaving the workplace ventured to a nearby store after receiving money for the first time, a gift from a neighbor during the Chinese New Year. She said her trip to the store “is the reason my employer returned me to the agency…. I had gone to buy coffee and bread.”133 In the most severe cases, domestic workers likened their confinement to the workplace as imprisonment. Sri Mulyani, a thirty-year-old Indonesian domestic worker, described her experience with an employer for whom she had worked for three years: I was not allowed to go outside. I never went outside, not even to dump the garbage. I was always inside, I didn’t even go to the market. I felt like I was in jail. It was truly imprisonment. I was not allowed to turn the radio on either…. I could only see the outside world when I hung clothes to dry…. My employer said, “Don’t speak to anyone. Don’t speak to friends or to the neighbors.” I wasn’t allowed to contact my relatives. I worked for three years. I had nobody to talk to. I asked my employers if I could return to Indonesia, and they said no. I was not happy or comfortable, and I wanted to go back. They said, “you have to finish your contract. You have to make sure you finish your contract before you go back.”…. [Even] if I needed a panty liner, one of the children would be sent down to buy it for me.134 One domestic worker who suffered sexual harassment was locked inside her employer’s compound for the first three months of employment. She said, “My employer asked me to massage him. He hugged me. I was shocked because he was my employer…. I wanted to leave, but the gate was locked…. [After three months], they gave me the key…. That is when I ran away.”135 In another case, Human Rights Watch interviewed Eri Sudewo, a domestic worker who had not been outside in two years and was almost skeletal from lack of food. She had recently been rescued after tossing a letter pleading for help to a neighboring domestic worker who sought the intervention of an aid organization, the Ministry of Manpower, and the police. Sudewo was elated to contact her family for the first time, to visit a Singaporean market for the first time, and to speak with other Indonesians. She recounted how she felt like she was going insane due to the isolation, yet did not know where to turn for help. She said: The outside door was locked. All the doors were locked, only the bathroom was open. The kitchen was locked. For one day, one week at a time, I would never eat anything. I was hungry, what could I do?... I had no day off, I never went outside. When the Filipina maid went outside to throw the rubbish, she would tell me [through the window], you must run, if you stay, you will die.136 Some domestic workers reported having to arrange their work duties at inconvenient times in order to avoid meeting neighbors. For example, one domestic worker said, “I had to clean the car. The first day the son tells me to clean the car at 7 a.m. The mom says no because it is too early, she is afraid I will talk to my friends. So I had to clean the car at 11:30 a.m. when it is very hot.”137 Other employers imposed strict time constraints. A domestic worker told Human Rights Watch, “If I left the flat to throw out the trash, I had to return in exactly three minutes.”138 In one case, employers restricted the movements of their domestic workers in response to their own failure to pay the monthly levy. Anis Rukiyah said, “After MOM [the Ministry of Manpower] sent the letter about the employer failing to pay the levy, my employers asked me never to go anywhere. If I answered the phone, the employer got angry.”139 Many domestic workers resorted to ingenious methods to stay in touch with the outside world. This included keeping handphones hidden from employers or dropping letters out of the window for neighbors to pick up. For example, Endang Utari, a thirty-one-year-old domestic worker said, “My employer thinks Indonesians are very stupid. She didn’t believe anything I said. I could not go out of the house and buy groceries. She called her daughters to buy food. Once a month during menstruation, I would need a pad, I could bring amma [the employer’s mother] and go to the market…. I have a handphone. Two years ago I bought it. I kept it in my bed. I asked my friend to buy the top up card. I kept it hidden from my employer. I wrote a letter and threw it [to my friend].”140 Many employers and agents claim that domestic workers do not wish to leave their workplaces because Singapore is an unfamiliar country, or they are comfortable at home. Many domestic workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch spoke about their strong desire to have more freedom. One domestic worker said, “They should give us time to write letters, and have contact with our families because we are homesick.”141 Another domestic worker commented, “I need more freedom. I want to be able to talk to my friends and not just on my off days.”142 Unpaid WagesI was supposed to get paid S$230 per month. I was never given any salary. I came on February 7, 2003. When I asked for my salary, they asked “why?” I said, “I want to send it to my father.” I waited, I waited, I waited. I don’t want to ask anymore. She said, “Don’t worry, I will give it to you when you leave. If you want anything, soap, biscuits, I will buy it for you.” Failure to receive full and regular payment of wages is one of the most common complaints handled by the Ministry of Manpower and other aid organizations that assist domestic workers.143 As one domestic worker, Eko Mardiyanto, said, “Sometimes my employer doesn’t pay my salary, I have to ask for it. Sometimes she pays me every five months, sometimes every month.”144 Another domestic worker said, “I have been working for two years, and have no money. I only have S$20 [U.S.$12], no money, how come?.... Every night I cannot sleep. I have no money. I am awake trying to think of who can help me.”145 In one case, a Bangladeshi domestic worker, Chandrika Das, did not receive wages for almost eight years. When she tried to claim her wages upon departure, her employer told her, “I’ve done a lot for you. Because of me, you got to breathe the air in Singapore. I gave you a luxurious life. Whatever we have done for you is enough.”146 After mediation through the Ministry of Manpower, she received a partial settlement of S$3,280 [U.S.$1,935] as payment for twenty months. As one migrant worker’s advocate noted: “She was owed S$20,000 and settled for S$3,000,”147 approximately S$1 [U.S.$0.59] for each day of work over eight years. Das returned to Bangladesh, but may return to seek the rest of her salary.148 In another case of unpaid wages, an underage domestic worker was not paid for four years. When the worker approached her embassy for help, they calculated that she was owed S$10,000 [U.S.$5,900] in back wages.149 Domestic workers have little negotiating ability when they sign contracts for overseas employment. During their first two-year contract, the labor agent typically sets the salary. Although many domestic workers sign a contract before beginning work, almost none retain their own copies, and many are vague about the terms and conditions of employment. Human Rights Watch interviewed Julie Panada, a newly-arrived domestic worker from the Philippines who did not know the salary she would receive once she finished paying her debts. She said, “I don’t know my salary yet…I got here yesterday.”150 Even when they do have certain wage expectations, once they arrive in Singapore, at the mercy of an employer who can repatriate them at whim, many accept the salaries given to them, even if it is lower than what they had agreed to. Lalitha Ranjanie, a Sri Lankan domestic worker said, “My salary is low—200 dollars. [At the embassy they told me] it would be 250. I never received a contract.”151 Domestic workers often have little control over their wages. Employers may say that they are depositing money in the bank, but the domestic worker often has no independent access or records of the account. Similarly, some employers say they are wiring money to the domestic worker’s family without actually doing so. A thirty-year-old domestic worker said: I never received any salary. My employers said they were putting money in the bank. Actually there was no bank account in my name…. I worked for them for twelve months, I wanted to go home…. The employer got upset because I kept on asking about my salary…. My employer was angry with me. They didn’t pay my ticket back to Indonesia…. My employer said, “Sri, time for you to go home, but I have no money to send you. I will work here and send it to you later.” They chased me out. On 14 January [2005], they forced me out of the house.152 As in the case above, some employers fail not only to pay the required wages regularly, but also evade their obligations under Singaporean regulations to pay for the domestic worker’s return trip home or paid leave to her country at least once every two years. Many employers shirk their obligation by purchasing cheap ferry tickets to nearby Batam or to capital cities like Manila or Colombo, instead of buying the complete fare to a domestic worker’s hometown. Domestic workers who have finished their contracts and are repatriated then have few options for seeking redress. One employer, in addition to withholding three months of salary, improperly charged her twenty-two-year-old Indonesian domestic worker S$400 [U.S.$236] for food and for her return fare. One domestic worker, Dita Wulansih, told Human Rights Watch: I said to my employer, “Okay, buy a ticket to Jakarta,” because I am from Jakarta. She said she bought a ticket to Batam. I said, “Mom, I don’t have family in Batam.” She said, “I don’t care about you.” I spent a whole month’s salary trying to leave Batam [and return to Singapore to make a complaint.]153 An official from the Sri Lankan High Commission gave an example of a complaint received the day of the interview: “I just received a call from a woman who didn’t get two months salary….. She is underpaid, they owe her S$500 [U.S.$295]. They did not give her a return ticket. Roughly on a monthly basis, we have five to eight cases of unpaid wages.”154 Some employers cut the salaries of their domestic workers, charging them for perceived mistakes or damages sustained during the course of housework, or simply as a form of control. The practice of deducting domestic workers’ salaries for such costs is illegal. Lilia Jornadal, a domestic worker employed in Singapore for more than one year, said, “The first five months my salary went to my agent…. Then I got it only every two months. If I didn’t ask for it, they wouldn’t give it. The punishment for one mistake would be S$1 [U.S.$0.59]. They were often cutting forty or fifty [Singapore] dollars per month [U.S.$24-30]. I didn’t have a choice. I had to accept it.”155 Cynthia Suarez, another domestic worker, despite having worked in Singapore for several years, said, “If I don’t answer the phone, the employer deducts S$5 [U.S.$3] from my salary. He makes a deduction if I forget to do something, or he says something is dirty.”156 Recent revisions to the work permit regulations require employers to pay domestic workers each month. The Ministry of Manpower, sending countries’ embassies, and aid organizations have intervened in increasing numbers of cases over recent years to address unpaid wages. Yet many domestic workers continue to have little access to redress, especially if their employers decide to repatriate them immediately when they demand their wages. Ministry of Manpower officials have suggested that domestic workers who are being repatriated contact immigration officers at their point of departure, but many domestic workers are kept under close supervision while at the airport, are unaware of such options, are intimidated by these officials, or are too overwhelmed by the circumstances to act. Once they have returned to their native country, most are resigned to the fact that it is no longer feasible to reclaim their wages. Human Rights Watch interviewed Dwiyani, a woman who believed her only recourse was returning to Singapore as a domestic worker—with another ten-month loan repayment period—and pursuing her claim for unpaid wages with her first employer. Although she returned and authorities eventually resolved the case in her favor, the case shows the heavy price domestic workers can pay if unaware of redress mechanisms available to them. Dwiyani told us she had worked for her first employer for one year: I received cash S$380 for the whole year…. I was confused because I was told to go home and I didn’t know what to do and if I stayed here I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know where to report. I went home…and my mother got angry with me. I only brought two million rupiah [U.S.$198]. She asked, “Your employer didn’t pay you?” I told her what happened….[and eventually decided to return to Singapore under a new contract.] I went back to MOM [the Ministry of Manpower], my former employers were also there…. They said the unpaid wages were only a few dollars. I claimed S$1640 [U.S.$968]. MOM counted for themselves and they agreed with me…. In the end they paid me. Now I want to send money back home and also look for more work, because I have to pay the new agency.157 Exorbitant Debt PaymentsI stayed one month in the employment agency [when I transferred employers]. They charged me S$20 [U.S.$12] per night and I owed them S$600 [U.S.$354]. Can you imagine, my monthly salary is S$340 [U.S.$201]. [I transferred employers twice. When my third employer made me clean two houses,] I ran away to this shelter. If I go again to my agency, they will charge S$20 [U.S.$12] again. More debts. I work so hard, and then the salary goes to the agency. Another problem that some domestic workers confront is illegal deployment to jobs other than the one stipulated in their work permits and employment contracts. Singapore’s immigration policies require that domestic workers be employed in only one household and prohibits them from engaging in other forms of work. Many domestic workers have little choice but to perform the work demanded of them by their employers. Even in cases where they know working for others is illegal, many are afraid to protest, knowing employers might repatriate them before they pay back their loans or earn money. Rita Yuboc worked for two separate employers who violated the terms of her employment visa and contract. She said: Every Sunday I had to clean the house of my madam’s mother. [For my third employer], I had to clean the factory, one residence, so many houses…. I cleaned the residence and condo everyday, and the factory every day, sometimes all day. They [also] delivered me boxes of factory work. Fifty boxes, I would do it at home. How many [pieces] inside, in one box, one thousand. Sometimes in one day, I would have to finish eight boxes.213 In another case documented by Human Rights Watch, an employer operated a laundry business out of her home by exploiting her domestic worker’s labor. The domestic worker, Aisyah Fatah, said: At 5 a.m., I would wake up, prepare the laundry. There were two washing machines and two dryers. I would boil water, and clean the house. I helped children when they wanted to eat and drink. I cooked when the children were at school. I did laundry from 5 a.m. to 12 a.m. The clothes were from outside. It was quite a lot, from customers at a hotel and factories. The machine was running non-stop. I had no chance to rest. I felt tired. There was not enough food. I had no off day, not even one, because there was so much work to do. The only time I went out is when I delivered the clothes from the 12th floor to the 1st floor, and then I had to come right back. I never went outside…. Even if I was sick, I tried not to feel it. My hands and feet were sore because I was so tired. I was standing morning to night, I couldn’t sit.214 One domestic worker worked early in the morning to cook food for the canteen that her employer operates. She said: At first my salary was S$240 [U.S.$150], now it is S$250 [U.S.$156]. It should be more than S$300 [U.S.$188] because I do so much work. I wake up at 2 a.m. to prepare food for the canteen and to pray. I sleep from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Then I clean the whole house, cook, and care for the child. I don’t know how to change employers. I am scared because of all the stories.215 Some employment agents may also illegally deploy domestic workers to multiple employers on a daily or weekly basis. In such cases, the agents often keep the payments themselves. An official at the Sri Lanka High Commission told us of one case in which an agent did not process a domestic worker for a work permit when she arrived in Singapore: Some agents are the scum of the earth…. He put her in temporary employment in six different places…. After one month, she asked for her salary…. The agent abused her in four letter words, screamed at her. “I’m taking you out of there and I’ll send you back.” He had been collecting her wages. She paid for her own ticket home. Some connection took pity on her and took her to MOM [Ministry of Manpower], and made a report.216 Low and Unequal WagesOur basic salary should be the same as that of domestic workers from other countries. We feel it is…unfair. I also can speak English. We are also human, also workers. We also clean toilets. Why make it different? We are the same as workers from other countries. Inadequate state regulation of domestic workers’ wages has led both to extremely low wages that are a mere fraction of that earned by other workers and to discriminatory practices by agencies that set wages according to nationality. Singapore has no minimum wage law. According to the Singapore Report on Wages 2004, an average entry-level Singaporean worker in a comparable occupation, for example, a cleaner or gardener, earns a starting wage of approximately S$700-850 [U.S.$438-531] per month.217 In contrast, the starting salary for Filipina domestic workers in early 2005 was S$320 [U.S.$189], for Indonesian and Sri Lankan domestic workers, approximately S$220-260 [U.S.$130-153], and for Indian domestic workers S$150-180 [U.S.$88-106] per month. One agent who supplies Indian domestic workers said, “They are the worst paid, S$180 per month. If they come direct with no agent, their pay is about S$100 [U.S.$59].”218 One domestic worker, Tina Wisnawan, told Human Rights Watch: My salary is S$250 [U.S.$148] only. For one month I get S$250, you can count—I am working from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., it is so long. You can count how much I earn per hour [S$0.55 per hour/U.S.$0.32]. It’s crazy. Indonesian maids have situations like this.219 Market forces serve to exploit migrant domestic workers in a context where a significant power imbalance exists between agents and employers on the one hand, and workers on the other, and where state policies accentuate these disparities. Singapore’s work permit regulations allow employers to repatriate a migrant domestic worker at will, weakening any bargaining power she may have. An organization providing services to domestic workers said: Employers have the privilege to cancel the work permit as they see fit. The domestic workers are truly at their mercy. If you’re not happy, cancel the work permit and the maid goes home. The maid has paid a lot of money to come here. It prevents a lot of them from speaking up. They have large families to support.220 For example, one highly-educated Filipina domestic worker told us her salary is, “quite low, for five years I have had no increase.... I don’t want to complain…. I fear they will find another maid.”221 Employment agencies typically offer prospective employers a “package” that includes a domestic worker at a set wage and a “free replacement” if there are problems. Inadequate Living AccommodationsI slept without a mattress or a pillow on the floor of the storeroom. Many domestic workers reported that in addition to long working hours, a lack of rest days, and other labor violations, their dignity as human beings was not respected by their employers or agents. In particular, many domestic workers are given substandard living accommodations. A group of domestic workers, discussing the recommendations they would like to see implemented, said, “Employers must give food, proper accommodation and respect to domestic workers. They should treat workers with respect. If they respect us, we will respect them.”222 Several domestic workers that Human Rights Watch interviewed did not have adequate living arrangements and were sleeping in the common living areas.223 For example, one domestic worker said, “I slept with the lady and the baby. I couldn’t sleep alone. Sometimes I slept on the floor in the hallway or in the room for changing clothes.”224 Another domestic worker said, “I slept in the front hall. I had to unroll my mat each night. Everybody could walk by, they could see me [when I was sleeping].”225 A domestic worker in a similar situation said, “I was not comfortable, because it was in the open.”226 One woman explained that her employer, “wanted me to sleep in the living room. I slept in the store room because I didn’t want to sleep in the living room.”227 Many domestic workers slept in storerooms, laundry rooms, or closet areas: “I slept in the storeroom. I couldn’t stretch out my legs, it was very small! It was the length of this sofa, only 2-3 feet high.”228 In some of the worst situations, employers did not provide basic sleeping materials. Many domestic workers interviewed by Human Rights Watch shared their bedroom with an employer or the employer’s children. In some cases, domestic workers shared rooms with adult males. Dwiyani told Human Rights Watch that in one employment situation, “I slept in a room together with the employer’s children, one a twenty-six-year-old man, and a seventeen-year-old girl. When I was at the agent’s office, I was told that both were female. At first I was very afraid. When I was asleep, the boy slept next to me, but nothing happened.”229 Kartini Wibowo said, “The daughter and [the employer’s] wife sleep on the beds. I slept on the floor in between them.”230 One domestic worker said, “I share a room and bed with my employer’s fourteen-year-old daughter.”231 Sharing a room with others often meant that domestic workers did not have the ability to take adequate rest time. She told us, “Every night the mother helps the kids to study until 11 p.m. I have to wait for them to finish before I can sleep…. I do not have a chance to rest. If I want to lie down during the daytime, I cannot, I cannot rest.”232 Many are forced to cut their hair, although the stated reason of hygiene is one that could easily be solved by hairnets. For example, Eri Sudewo, a domestic worker, said: My hair was long. The employer said, ‘You must cut your hair. If your hair drops on the floor, it’s dirty. If you don’t cut it, I will cut it.’ I cried, because I didn’t want short hair. I cried. She said, I will take you to get your hair cut, if you don’t want to cut it, then go home…. I don’t want to go back home, it’s so shameful. In my country, we are Muslim. We go to the mosque, I do not want to go with short hair. I cried again. I cried and cried and cried.233 The Right to Just and Favorable Conditions of WorkInternational human rights law protects a spectrum of workers’ rights. Articles 23 and 24 of the UDHR outline rights to just and favorable conditions of work, remuneration, freedom to form and join trade unions, rest, leisure, reasonable limitations of working hours, and periodic holidays.234 Article 11(d) of CEDAW delineates the “right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value” and article 11(f) describes the “right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions.”235 The work conditions of migrant domestic workers often do not meet the minimum standards defined in Singapore law for workers in other employment sectors. Singapore’s Employment Act sets forth the following labor rights for other employees: one rest day per week; a rest period after six hours of continuous work, a maximum of forty-four work hours per week, and paid sick leave.236 By excluding domestic workers from the Employment Act, Singapore’s labor laws fail to comply with international law. One of the explanations that the Singapore government offers in response to criticisms about excluding domestic workers from the Employment Act is the difficulty in enforcing such labor protections and a resulting lack of credibility for the government. Ministry of Manpower officials told Human Rights Watch, “We have considered a standard contract. Legislation is not the main route. [Our concern is] if we have legislation and are unable to enforce it.”237 This argument has several flaws. Intentionally excluding domestic workers from equal treatment in labor laws sends a strong message to employers and employment agents that the government sanctions separate and unequal treatment for domestic workers as a class of employees. These exclusions undermine Singapore’s justice system in a much more profound way—they demonstrate that all persons are not equal before the law. Hong Kong has included domestic workers in their employment laws, and while complete enforcement is a challenge—as with any law—the tens of thousands of workers who congregate on Sundays, form social organizations, and join trade unions is a testament to how many enjoy their right to a weekly day off. Domestic workers in Hong Kong are also entitled to a minimum wage and maternity protections. The Hong Kong government’s inclusion of domestic workers in the employment laws sends a clear message to employers about legally acceptable standards of treatment. Furthermore, many strategies exist for bolstering enforcement of labor protections for migrant domestic workers. These include raising public awareness, guaranteeing workers’ rights to freedom of movement and freedom to form associations, and improving monitoring systems for employment agencies and workplaces. Many domestic workers do not seek help because of fear they would be repatriated before they can repay their debts or earn something to send home. De-linking domestic workers’ visas from particular employer families could help address this. Other strategies include providing an option to live in independent quarters, keeping written records of hours worked, and supporting drop-in centers for migrant domestic workers on their day off. Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, and MistreatmentPhysical AbuseThe lady employer kicked me while wearing shoes, would throw things at my head, and pinch me in the stomach. She beat me for two months before I quit, it was happening everyday…. I had bruises on my legs and on my stomach. Some migrant domestic workers experience serious physical or sexual abuse. Human Rights Watch interviewed representatives of aid organizations who stated that physical abuse and food deprivation comprised approximately one quarter to half of the cases they dealt with, making it the most commonly reported problem after unpaid wages. Embassies of sending countries also cited physical abuse and food deprivation as among the complaints they received.238 They noted that physical abuse was a problem not only among employers, but also employment agents.239 The Singapore government amended its Penal Code in 1998 to increase by 1.5 times the penalties imposed for physical assault, sexual abuse, and forced confinement, if the abuse is committed by an employer against a migrant domestic worker. Between 2001 and 2004, twenty-six employers or household members were convicted and sentenced under this provision. In a possible indication of the deterrent value of the added penalty, the number of cases where employers received warnings from the police or were charged in court fell from 157 cases in 1997 to fifty-nine cases in 2004.240 While this is an important step, Singapore authorities need to do more to ensure that domestic workers know their rights, know how to preserve evidence (such as photos and other evidence of beatings), and are able to access the court system. Many domestic workers are afraid to approach the police for help, are not aware of where to seek assistance, or refrain from doing so because of the pressure to pay off their debts and earn money. One domestic worker said, “My employer would pull my hair and slap me. I had some bruises but didn’t mention it to the police because I was afraid and because I didn’t speak English. I didn’t know anything…. If I wanted to complain there was nowhere. I spent too many days just crying.”241 In many cases, employers used the excuse of mistakes in housework as a justification for punishment. Adelyn Malana said: Every time I made a mistake, she pushed me. If I did the ironing, she looked for small things, she beat me, she beat me hard with a big wooden heavy spoon. She says, where is your brain, eh? I said, “if you treat me like this, I can’t understand you.” I was working for four weeks. She hit me sometimes. One time, I got black bruises on my foot,…. She hit me on the hands, they would become red…. She pushed me when I carried the electric fan. It broke, and she said “since my fan broke, you have to pay me.” She twisted my finger…. I couldn’t work. I was crying because there was so much pain. She gave me no medicine.242 In another case, Ani Khadijah said: My employer would get angry with me and slap me. If a little bit, just a little bit was wrong. She would complain to the agent. The employer brought me to the agent, and my agent slapped me also.…. Once she slipped on water. She made me drink four cups of water and she splashed the water on me [when I tried to drink]. The employer was very cruel. She would slap me over and over again. Everytime, everyday. [After I went to the police station], the employer said “I won’t slap you anymore.” After one week she did. The baby got sick and she slapped me again. She said I didn’t give the milk according to the schedule. The employer made up stories…. I had to wash hands before giving milk. She would say I didn’t and slap me… She would get angry. She was not just talking, her hand would be doing the talking.243 In another case documented by Human Rights Watch, a domestic worker said: If I asked to make a call, she would scold and slap me…. I said I had to call my family, she slapped me…. She slapped me so many times…. The last day [of my employment] she slapped me twice, because I washed the pillow and the black color ran. Once she asked me to bring her mahjong, but I didn’t know what mahjong was. She hit me in the hand. She used to hit me with her hand, sometimes she would punch me in the arm. Sometimes sir would ask me why it’s red, and I would say, “nothing, I fell down.” The day I ran away, I bled because she punched me. Even after three days at the embassy, I still had bruises.244 Human Rights Watch heard many similar stories. One worker told us, “The grandma would get angry. She would beat me, pinch me, hit me. That is why I ran away.”245 In another case, the employer tried to humiliate the domestic worker, who said, “Sometimes I wasn’t allowed to use the toilet. I would have to urinate on a towel. The employer would cut my clothes, like the sleeves on one side. She threw dirty mop water on me many times.”246 Physical abuse intersects with many of the other problems that domestic workers confront, including the fear of being sent home before they pay off their debts and earn a salary. A domestic worker said: If I made a mistake, she would scold me…She would rap my head…She would do it hard, it would hurt. She would threaten to send me back to the Philippines. I asked her to forgive me, I needed money for my family. It was very difficult. I had a friend next door. When I threw out the rubbish, I would talk to her. She was an Indonesian maid. Once I was outside just a few minutes…. She was very angry and pinched my two ears. She pinched and pulled my two ears and blood came out. This happened twice. After the [police investigation] finishes, I am going back to the Philippines. I am going back without anything, it is very difficult.247 Food DeprivationThere was not enough food. For breakfast I had two pieces of bread…. My employer is very killer [strict]. She counts the bread, she was killer, killer. When I ate one piece of fish, the employer got angry. At night I was hungry. When the employer went out, sometimes my neighbor would knock on the door and give me rice to eat. There are still a lot of people like me. They do not get enough food. When I worked in the laundry, there was a Filipina next door. I would meet her when taking out the garbage. The Filipina worker said she was hungry. We should get enough to eat. Because the work is hard, we need to eat. When I was working in that house, I went from 54 to 40 kilograms. Human Rights Watch interviewed many domestic workers who did not receive adequate food at their place of employment. The work permit states that employers are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of their domestic worker. Given that many of these women are unable to move freely outside of their workplace, they are dependent on their employers to provide them enough food. One domestic worker, Mallika Selvi, said, “I get food once a day only.”248 Another domestic worker said she lost 10 kilograms during her first year of employment.249 Adelyn Malana weighed 45 kilograms when she began employment, and weighed only 37 kilograms when she ran away from her employer six months later. She said: Sometimes there was not enough food….. They bought food from outside, but not for me. When angry, [the employer] would throw my food in the rubbish. I asked permission [to eat rice, but] I got no rice, only bread …. For breakfast I had two pieces of bread. At 4 p.m. I took two more pieces of bread….. I am a human. I got sick. I’m far [from home,] who would take care of me if I got sick? I ran away. I was very scared. My employer told me, “Tomorrow you have a punishment, no eating.”….I took my bag and I ran. I called my sister, I’m hungry and my employer is no good. If I stay long, I think I’d go to the hospital. I would get an ulcer. I want to eat everyday, I want to eat enough.250 Bayuningsih’s employer locked her inside the house and locked the kitchen door when she left the house so Bayuningsih could not eat the food. This employer not only denied her food, but would spoil it so that it would be inedible. She told Human Rights Watch: My employer would get angry. If there was no food to eat, she would say, “I don’t care, drink water. When you finish working, then I will give you food.” When I finished work, she would tell me to go to sleep. Once when my employer got angry, she put soap in my tin of food and I couldn’t eat it. But I ate it anyway because I was so hungry. The outside door was locked. All the doors were locked, only the bathroom was open. The kitchen was locked. [Sometimes] for one day, sometimes for one week at a time, I would never eat anything. I was hungry, what could I do? I was hungry.251 Lalitha Ranjanie, another domestic worker, said, “If I took fish and vegetables on my plate, my employer would say, ‘you take so much, take some out’…. [Once] for three days they stopped giving me food.”252 Many domestic workers reported that they ate leftovers, and if there were not enough, they would be hungry.253 One domestic worker told Human Rights Watch, “When I cooked in the evening, my employer said I should make extra for my breakfast and lunch, but if I cooked a lot, the employer would be angry at me for eating too much. In the evening, I would get the leftovers, and if there were no leftovers, I would only eat rice.”254 Sri Mulyani said, “I only ate once a day at 7p.m. I never took lunch. I was asked to cook only a little bit of food, and I was afraid the kids wouldn’t have enough to eat. For example, if we were eating chicken wings, the employer would tell me to buy three for the kids, and then there wouldn’t be enough for me. I would drink a lot of water.”255 Human Rights Watch interviewed employment agents who both verified that food deprivation was a problem with some employers, but suggested that some domestic workers were too shy to ask for food. One agent said, “Sometimes a maid will say, ‘I don’t get to eat between breakfast and dinner.’ Not because the employers said no, but because they dare not to eat. We call our clients and say, ‘please tell the maid she can eat or that she doesn’t have to wait until 8 p.m./dinner.’”256 Domestic workers confront hardship not only because of a lack of food, but because of the timing of meals and the lack of continuous rest breaks. One worker, age twenty-four, said, “In the morning [the employer] wanted me to clean before taking breakfast. My stomach was empty.”257 Other domestic workers described their workload and the lack of continuous periods of rest that prevented them from eating. Pertiwisari explained, “If I don’t finish my work, I cannot sleep, [my employer] said. Sometimes I didn’t eat lunch. For breakfast I prefer to eat bread, but my employer said, ‘why buy bread, the children don’t eat it.’ So I only took water.”258 Human Rights Watch found a range of opinions among employment agents about food deprivation. Some agents challenge the claims of domestic workers. For example, several employment agents told Human Rights Watch in a meeting, “FDWs [foreign domestic workers] have accused agents of not providing enough food. They lie. If they are choosy about food, they don’t say. It is a lie.”259 Other employment agents expressed concern and took active measures to address the problem. Human Rights Watch interviewed an employment agent who said, “Some maids lose 5 kilograms in one month. We keep a scale in the office. Agents are supposed to protect both parties. If the employer abuses the maid, we won’t give them another maid.”260 Many domestic workers depend on the kindness of neighbors and fellow domestic workers. Human Rights Watch interviewed several domestic workers who said that if their employer did not provide them with adequate food, they had neighbors who would try to sneak them food from open windows. One domestic worker said: I had a friend on the second floor. I was working on the third floor. During morning and lunch, I didn’t get anything to eat. My friend often gave me food. I would pull food up using yarn, my friend would help by pushing it with a mop.261 Another worker, Budi Puspita, said, “My friend has a problem with her employer. The employer doesn’t give her enough food, they abuse her. She can’t talk [or go out.] We call her from the intercom downstairs.”262 Sexual Abuse and Harassment[Crying and whispering] He asked me to have sex with him…. Why do domestic workers always have to submit? I never follow his wish. I lie to him. I am afraid that some day he will really force me…. When his wife is not at home, he approaches me…. The employer’s bad behavior is why I want to go home. If it is bad words, I can take it. I prefer being hit or bad words to this. Migrant domestic workers are at risk of sexual harassment and abuse by their employers. Although our research and indications from the Ministry of Manpower, sending countries’ embassies, and service agencies suggest that sexual abuse comprises a relatively small proportion of complaints made by migrant domestic workers, the severity of the abuse makes it a cause for particular concern. Underreporting is likely a significant problem due to domestic workers’ isolation in the workplace and the deep social stigma attached to sexual assault. This stigma may be especially strong in their home countries. The forms of abuse vary. Marites Padilla, a twenty-nine-year-old Filipina domestic worker said her male employer sexually harassed her in the mornings when her female employer left early for work. Weeping, she told Human Rights Watch: The room is open, there is never a closed door…. I could see [my employer] naked, I could see him masturbating. The first time I ignored it. But it happened every time. The first time I thought it was a coincidence. Then how many times already. This happened for over a year. One time, I knew mom was not going to be home. The kids were still sleeping…. Every morning, I felt nervous and scared…. He called me, he was standing in the door of the room I was cleaning. I saw him naked below. He called me to bring his underwear to him…. I put it on the doorknob, and I said, “sir, your underwear.” He asked me to iron it. He was still naked, he really exposed his private parts. I was very angry.263 A domestic worker, Muriyani Suharti, told Human Rights Watch: I was threatened, if I didn’t sleep with my employer, they would send me to Batam. Once or twice a week I was forced to sleep with him. If I was angry with him, he would want me. They said they would sell me to Batam where I would be taken by a lot of men.264 Even if a domestic worker turns to her embassy or the police, these authorities sometimes fail to investigate the case properly or release her back into the custody of an employment agency. Employment agencies often fail to report abuses or to provide necessary aid and referrals. Domestic workers told Human Rights Watch they do not know where to turn. Suharti, described above, unsuccessfully sought help from the police and was returned to her employment agency. She said: After two months I couldn’t take it anymore, so I ran away. I went to the mosque…. I asked [for help to] report to the police. After that the police came and took me and I said how the employer forced me. That time the police put me in jail. I don’t know why, I got angry. “Why are you putting me here? I’m not a criminal.” The police said, “this is a safe place for you.” After two days, the agency came and took me.265 Domestic workers are at increased risk for abuse if agents illegally deploy them for part-time work to multiple employers. Neerangini, an Indian domestic worker told us how her agent sent her to several households and withheld her wages. For seven days, she worked in the house of a man whose family was traveling abroad. She said: I couldn’t fight him off, he threatened me…. It felt dirty, painful…. He threatened me, “I paid money to bring you here to work.” I said, “You didn’t tell me what kind of work. You didn’t buy me to rape me but for a job. I didn’t come for this kind of job. I have a husband and children, I know family life.” He didn’t show sympathy…. I was begging on my hands and knees, “let me use the phone.”266 Verbal Abuse and ThreatsMy employers used only abusive words. They didn’t hit me…they would say things like “why don’t you jump out of the window? Rather than thinking about your parents, it would be better if you just committed suicide by jumping out the window.” The wife was really angry and used bad words. She called me a pig, a prostitute, an easy woman. Verbal and psychological abuse by employers serves to belittle, intimidate, and further isolate domestic workers. One common threat, women said, was that they would be sent back to their home countries, a frightening prospect to women who have huge debts to repay or fear punishment from labor agents. Ministry of Manpower officials told Human Rights Watch, “Employers take the threat of repatriation lightly, but it has a big psychological impact.”267 As mentioned above, Lilia Jornadal’s employer hit her and would threaten to send her back to the Philippines.268 One domestic worker, Aisyah Fatah, told us: My employer got angry every day…. One time, she threatened me, “do you want me to hit you?” She threatened often to send me back. I was not allowed to talk to other people. Next door, there was also an Indonesian, I was not allowed to talk to her. If I was caught, I was told I could be sent back.269 Verbal abuse often goes together with long work hours and unreasonable work expectations. Dewi Hariyanti told us, “If I make a little mistake, [my employer] often uses harsh words, shouts. His wife also gets angry with me. Sometimes they say, “you prawn brain.” They say too much, I do not want to remember.”270 Employers often exhibited abusive control by monitoring domestic workers’ every movement or forcing them to repeat tasks. Adelyn Malana told Human Rights Watch: Even simple cleaning I couldn’t do without permission from her. If I mopped the floor or cleaned the table, she was very angry and punished me. Everyday there was a quarrel…. I didn’t know what to do. I was very scared because she was very angry. Sometimes in one week, every day she’s angry. Sometimes I forgot to do things or made mistakes, [for example] I put the bedsheet and bedcover together in the wash instead of separate. She would make me mop the floor ten times in one day because of a very small mistake. She would ask, “Why do you make me angry?”271 Domestic workers reported name-calling and other derogatory statements. Milagros Baluyot said that her employer, “always gets angry and I have to take the blame…. If he loses his keys, it’s my fault. ‘You bloody, fucking maid!’ He will say this in the middle of the street.”272 Human Rights Watch interviewed Lalitha Ranjanie, a domestic worker who said, “The people of the house call me stupid, an idiot, they use every bad word. … They tell me I am a bad lady, like a prostitute.”273 Muriyani Suharti said, “Everyday, my employer would get angry. Everyday they would call me an idiot and stupid. They even used ‘idiot’ as my name.”274 The Right to Security of Person and Freedom from DiscriminationInternational human rights law establishes the security of person, and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.275 In the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the United Nations stated that governments have an obligation to “prevent, investigate, and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by states or by private persons.”276 A state’s consistent failure to do so amounts to unequal and discriminatory treatment, and constitutes a contravention of the state’s obligation to guarantee women equal protection of the law.277 The ILO’s Committee of Experts considers that sexual harassment falls within the scope of the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. The CEDAW Committee has commented that sexual harassment includes: unwelcome sexually determined behaviour as physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual demand, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment, including recruitment and promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment.278 The Singapore government has a responsibility to address the psychological, verbal, physical, and sexual violence that migrant domestic workers encounter. Singapore has indicated that abuse against domestic workers is a serious offense, both through increased penalties and by undertaking high-profile prosecutions of abusive employers. As mentioned earlier, offenses like voluntarily causing hurt, assault, and rape have 1.5 times the penalty if committed against migrant domestic workers. While Singapore’s strong criminal justice response is an important step in the right direction, it needs to do more to make it easier for victims to gain access to courts and social services. Independent monitoring of employment agencies and workplaces in private homes is also essential, as are mandated weekly rest days and protections of workers’ freedom of association. Women migrant workers’ ability to take time off and to visit NGOs, their country’s embassy, health care providers, and workers’ associations are critical measures for increasing their awareness about their rights and access to services. Restrictions on Religious FreedomWe went to a labor agency in Jurong West. They kept our Indonesian money, cosmetics, and praying garments. They said it would be given to us on our return. The agency told me we are not allowed to pray because the employer doesn’t like it. The Indonesian agent also told me I wouldn’t be able to pray. I felt very sad. Human Rights Watch interviewed domestic workers who reported they were forbidden from attending church if they were Christian, or praying or fasting if they were Muslim. In many cases, employment agents were the first to order domestic workers to stop praying, and confiscated their holy books, prayer shawls, and prayer rugs. In one case, a domestic worker reported: The agent in Singapore was cruel…. I was wearing a head scarf. They took it and threw it away…. He took all my family phone numbers, my prayer books, my scarf, and prayer shawl. He searched my bag and took all of these things out roughly.279 Another worker, Kartika Hatmoko, said, “When I arrived, my madam [employer] said I was not allowed to pray. When I came here, the agency took away my praying attire.”280 One domestic worker told Human Rights Watch, “They said I cannot pray, that I cannot fast during Ramadan.”281 Kanthi Unisa, a Sri Lankan domestic worker, said, “I asked my agency, I want to go to church. They said if you want an off day, take S$25 [U.S.$15] off your salary per day.”282 Many domestic workers told Human Rights Watch that one of their main recommendations to the Singapore government would be to protect their freedom to practice their religion. Tuti Prihatin, a domestic worker, said: They don’t give us freedom to practice our religion. They almost sent me back. If you want me to stay here, I must practice my religion. If I pray, I remember my God. The Singapore agency took my Holy Koran. It made me very, very sad. Even money is less important to me.283 After a lively discussion with several fellow Indonesian domestic workers about recommendations to the government, one domestic worker said, “We should be given freedom to worship. We have to be given freedom to practice religion. Make it punishable for employers who don’t comply.”284 Another added that it was not only freedom to pray but from coercive proselytizing, “[My employers] are Christian, and they want me to be Christian…. They told me if I was Christian, they would give me an off day every Sunday. This is what makes me saddest. They don’t let me fast, I cannot read the Koran. I cannot even touch it.”285 Article 18 of the UDHR establishes, “the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion…and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”286 The Singapore Constitution states that, “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.”287 The restrictions employers and labor agents place on some migrant domestic workers’ freedom to fast, to pray, and to attend religious services in accordance with their religious beliefs constitute a clear infringement of their freedom of religion as protected under international human rights law. In some cases, confiscation of prayer materials and the Koran as well as targeted religious insults designed to humiliate domestic workers could also be considered a form of psychological abuse and degrading treatment. Restrictions on Reproductive and Marriage Rights
Singapore’s immigration policies and employment practices restrict domestic workers’ reproductive, marriage, and sexual rights. In contravention of international human rights standards that protect the right of individuals to enter into marriage freely, Singapore’s immigration policies prohibit migrant domestic workers from marrying or cohabiting with Singaporean citizens or permanent residents. A clause allows the Controller of Work Permits to grant permission for some couples to marry upon application, but there is little awareness among domestic workers and some officials from sending countries’ embassies about this possibility.288 For those who do apply, approximately 15 percent of applications are rejected—meaning domestic workers may spend years working in Singapore, and despite finding partners, are unable to exercise their right to marry a Singaporean unless they move to another country.289 Women migrant domestic workers undergo state-mandated medical examinations every six months, including pregnancy and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests, whereas other foreign workers are subject to medical examinations only once every two years. Immigration policies also dictate that any domestic worker who is pregnant loses her job and faces deportation. Misinformation about these policies, combined with restrictions on domestic workers’ movements have led to pregnant domestic workers facing additional barriers to obtaining voluntary abortions and having the freedom to make their own choices about continuing employment in Singapore. The government denies migrant domestic workers marriage rights in the name of controlling unemployment levels in Singapore. Officials from the Ministry of Manpower told Human Rights Watch, “The marriage restriction measure is needed to discourage a large pool of unskilled or lower skilled migrant workforce from sinking roots in Singapore. Given Singapore’s small size and limited resources, we are unable to support the long term retention of a large and growing pool of foreign workers when their employment has ceased.”290 Employers, labor agents, and government officials also expressed an underlying fear that foreign women, far from their families, pose a sexual and social threat to Singaporean families. Hence, work permit regulations not only forbid domestic workers from marrying Singaporeans, but also from “breaking up families in Singapore.”291 The fears underlying Singapore’s attempted control of domestic workers’ sex lives and relationships do not justify violating their rights to freely enter marriage and decide for themselves in matters relating to their intimate lives. Indeed, Singapore’s policies codify stereotypes that employers often hold about domestic workers being promiscuous and the biased rationales they use to justify restricting domestic workers’ freedom of movement. Many domestic workers said their employers treated them with suspicion from the beginning of their employment. Nuriah Mahdi, a domestic worker, said her employer, “was also very jealous. I could not greet my sir in the morning…. She said, Nuriah [not her real name], don’t greet my husband.”292 Another also told us of constant innuendos. Her employer said, “You cleaned the house quickly, are you looking for compliments from my husband?”293 One Indian domestic worker’s employer returned her to the agent on her first day. She said, The employer’s wife picked a fight with me. She said, “why did you come to spoil the family? Pack your bags and leave.” I said, “I came for employment, not to break up the family.” I was in a difficult position. I asked, “Why did you ask me to come here, why are you asking me to leave?” She sent me back to the agent.294 Confusion reigns about the wording in the work permit conditions, which prohibits domestic workers from “becoming” pregnant. Many employers, domestic workers, and employment agents interpret this clause to mean that a domestic worker who becomes pregnant automatically loses her job and must leave Singapore. Others believe the employers additionally forfeit the S$5,000 [U.S.$2,950] bond. According to Human Rights Watch interviews with Ministry of Manpower officials, the bond is forfeited only if a domestic worker runs away from her place of employment. They also clarified that a domestic worker may seek a voluntary abortion if she becomes pregnant and then continue her employment.295 What is forbidden is to give birth in Singapore: officials told us that domestic workers will be deported if they carry the pregnancy to term. Misperceptions about the security bond and discriminatory fears about domestic workers’ sexual activity contributes to government, employer, and labor agent resistance to days off and freedom of movement for domestic workers. Many domestic workers echoed the statement of Budi Puspita, who said, “They don’t give me more off days, because they’re worried that I will get a boyfriend.”296 One agent tells all domestic workers that she recruits, “Please remember you came because of financial problems. If looking for boyfriends, please leave. Be a super maid.”297 These practices infantilize adult women and assume they cannot make independent and wise choices about their personal lives while balancing work. One forty-two-year-old Filipina domestic worker who had been working in Singapore for ten years said, “I am single…we are working, we must follow the rules. The employer pays a S$5,000 bond so maids won’t get pregnant or married to a Singaporean…. I want to have a boyfriend, but… my employer says I cannot.”298 Employers and labor agents interviewed by Human Rights Watch repeatedly raised the S$5,000 bond as a rationale for forbidding their domestic worker from dating and for controlling domestic workers’ movements. One agent said, “The day off, this is only an excuse. This is what employers say to me. They say, ‘If my domestic worker gets pregnant, I will lose S$5,000.’”299 There is a widespread perception that the work permit policies forbid domestic workers from obtaining abortions. In Singapore, abortion is legal until the twenty-fourth week of gestation. An abortion provider said, “A lot of employers are unaware that if their maid gets pregnant, she can get an abortion in Singapore.”300 Because of the misperceptions, domestic workers may fear being repatriated if they get a legal abortion. Desperate to keep their jobs, they may turn to illegal or unsafe abortion-providers. One agent told Human Rights Watch: Abortion is illegal for maids.... Sometimes we become the doctors ourselves, we start buying the pills, mixing them with water! But if she has caused me trouble, then I repatriate her with the baby.301 Some domestic workers want an abortion in order to continue employment in Singapore and others fear physical violence and social stigma if they return to their home countries pregnant. In the Philippines, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka, abortion is either completely banned or only permissible to save a woman’s life. A doctor who has provided abortions to domestic workers said there are numerous obstacles that limit domestic workers’ access to voluntary abortions. He explained that, “The employer is very scared that the maid will get pregnant. The moment they know, they send them back to the Philippines or Indonesia. The maid is scared to let the employer know because she may get sent back…[therefore] they often come too late. Four months, mid-trimester.”302 The cost and limited time to leave the house and visit a clinic also prevent some domestic workers from obtaining abortions.303 International law protects the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.304 Article 12(1) of CEDAW prohibits discrimination against women in the field of health care and obliges states to ensure equal access to health care services.305 Migrant domestic workers who are unable to obtain voluntary abortions to end unwanted pregnancies are being denied a range of rights protected under international law, including the right to determine the number and spacing of their children and the highest attainable standard of health.306 [104] Human Rights Watch interview with Fachry Sulaiman, first secretary, Protocol and Consular, Embassy of Indonesia, Singapore, November 2, 2005. [105] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with official, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, November 17, 2005. [106] E-mail correspondence from Crescente Relación, first secretary and consul, Philippines Embassy, Singapore, to Human Rights Watch, November 29, 2005. [107] Sim Chi Yin, “Storm over a headline,” The New Paper, June 13, 2005 and information provided by fax by Ayodhia Kalake, Consulate General of the Republic of Indonesia, Hong Kong, June 2, 2005 and June 6, 2005. [108] Ibid., and information provided by fax by Fachry Sulaiman, first secretary, Protocol and Consular Affairs, Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, Singapore, May 31, 2005. [109] Human Rights Watch interview with Muriyani Suharti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, March 8, 2005. [110] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with official, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, November 17, 2005. [111] Records from private service organizations providing aid to migrant workers, Singapore, February 15, 2005. [112] Human Rights Watch interview with diplomat, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, February 18, 2005. [113] Human Rights Watch interview with Ng Cher Pong and Kenneth Yap, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [114] Ibid. [115] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 3, 2005. [116] Sim Chi Yin, “Still can't walk after 10 months,” The New Paper, February 20, 2004. [117] Human Rights Watch interview with Kartini Saptono (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-six, Singapore, February 20, 2005. [118] As discussed in the section, “Work Permit and Immigration Regulations," the government requires that employers take out a S5,000 security bond which they lose if the domestic worker runs away. This policy attempts to curb the incidence of work permit holders abandoning their jobs and becoming illegal migrants, [119] Human Rights Watch interview with Dwiyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty, February 22, 2005. [120] Human Rights Watch interview with Milagros Baluyot (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. Another domestic worker said, “My employer kept my work permit and passport. Even if I asked for it they wouldn’t give it to me.” Human Rights Watch interview with Dita Wulansih (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [121] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, February 28, 2005. [122] Human Rights Watch interview with Lilia Jornadal (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-five, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [123] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [124] Human Rights Watch interview with Tirtawati (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 28, 2005. [125] Human Rights Watch interview with domestic worker insurance agent, Singapore, February 28, 2005. [126] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 1, 2005c. [127] Human Rights Watch interview with Sylvia Tobias (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [128] Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [129] Human Rights Watch interview with Sri Mulyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [130] Human Rights Watch interview with Adelyn Malana (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [131] Human Rights Watch interview with a service provider, private aid organization, Singapore, February 24, 2005. [132] Human Rights Watch interview with Ani Khadijah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-four, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [133] Human Rights Watch interview with Aisyah Fatah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-one, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [134] Human Rights Watch interview with Sri Mulyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [135] Human Rights Watch interview with Anna Surla (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-seven, Singapore, November 3, 2005. [136] Human Rights Watch interview with Eri Sudewo (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-three, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [137] Human Rights Watch interview with Endang Utari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [138] Human Rights Watch interview with Muriyani Suharti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, March 8, 2005. [139] Human Rights Watch interview with Anis Rukiyah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-eight, February 27, 2005. [140] Human Rights Watch interview with Endang Utari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [141] Human Rights Watch interview with Rita Yuboc (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [142] Human Rights Watch interview with Budi Puspita (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 20, 2005. [143] “We have a conciliation service, free of charge. It handles about eighty cases per month. Almost all the cases are salary disputes,” Human Rights Watch interview with Ng Cher Pong and Kenneth Yap, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, February 22, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with private service organization aiding migrant workers, Singapore, February 17, 2005. [144] Human Rights Watch interview with Eko Mardiyanto (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-one, Singapore, February 20, 2005. [145] Human Rights Watch interview with Endang Utari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [146] Human Rights Watch interview with Chandrika Das (not her real name), age thirty-one, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [147] Human Rights Watch interview with private organization providing aid to migrant workers, Singapore, February 17, 2005. [148] Sim Chi Yin, “Maid Abuse of a Different Kind,” The New Paper, March 16, 2005. [149] Human Rights Watch interview with diplomat, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, February 18, 2005. [150] Human Rights Watch interview with Julie Panada (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, Singapore, March 2, 2005. [151] Human Rights Watch interview with Lalitha Ranjanie (not her real name), Sri Lankan domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [152] Human Rights Watch interview with Sri Mulyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [153] Human Rights Watch interview with Dita Wulansih (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [154] Human Rights Watch interview with diplomat, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, February 18, 2005. [155] Human Rights Watch interview with Lilia Jornadal (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-five, Singapore. March 9, 2005. [156] Human Rights Watch interview with Cynthia Suarez (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [157] Human Rights Watch interview with Dwiyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [158] Some domestic workers may be charged less than this range, and others more. This range represents Human Rights Watch’s main findings from field interviews with domestic workers, employment agents, labor-sending countries’ diplomatic missions, and migrant workers’ advocates. [159] Human Rights Watch interview with Margarita Ramos (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-six, Singapore, March 2, 2005. After paying recruitment fees in the Philippines, one Filipina domestic worker thought she would start receiving a salary once she starting working. Only when she arrived in Singapore she learned “that S$1200 [U.S.$708] goes to the agency. My salary was S$270 [U.S.$159], they deducted S$200 [U.S.$118]. Fifty dollars [U.S.$30] of my salary I saved for my air ticket to go home and for six months I only received S$20 [U.S.$12],” Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [160] Human Rights Watch interview with domestic worker insurance agent, Singapore, February 28, 2005. [161] Employment Act, section 31, Recovery of advances and loans. [162] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 3, 2005. [163] Human Rights Watch interview with domestic worker insurance agent, Singapore, February 28, 2005. He added, “[If employers pay] they will be more prepared to compromise. They take her back, call her stupid, get a replacement. If they don’t get a replacement, they go to another agent, it’s a free market. I will value her because I paid 1500.” [164] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 3, 2005. [165] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 1, 2005. [166] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 3, 2005b. [167] Human Rights Watch interview with Bridget Lew, director, H.O.M.E., Singapore, November 2, 2005. [168] Human Rights Watch interview with Lina Alvarez (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-three, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [169] Human Rights Watch interview with Pertiwisari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-one, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [170] Human Rights Watch interview with Endang Utari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [171] Human Rights Watch interview Sylvia Tobias (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [172] Human Rights Watch interview with Wati Widodo (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty, Singapore, March 10, 2005. [173] Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [174] Human Rights Watch interview with Lina Alvarez (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-three, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [175] Human Rights Watch interview with Wati Widodo (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty, Singapore, March 10, 2005. [176] Singapore Const., art. 10. [177] UDHR, art. 4; ICCPR, art. 8; ILO Forced Labor Convention (Convention No. 29), 1930, ratified by Singapore October 10, 1965; Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery, 60 L.N.T.S. 253, September 25, 1926, art. 1(1); and the U.N. Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (1956), ratified by Singapore March 28, 1972, art. 1(d). [178] ILO Convention on Forced Labour, 1930 (No. 29). [179] International Labor Conference, 1979 General Survey of the Reports relating to the Forced Labor Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and the Abolition of Forced Labor Convention, 1975, (No. 105), Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, 65th Session, Geneva, 1979, Report III, para. 21. [180] ILO, A Global Alliance Against Forced Labour: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 2005, International Labour Conference, 93rd Session, 2005, p. 6, [online], http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.DOWNLOAD_BLOB?Var_DocumentID=5059 (retrieved June 4, 2005). [181] Ibid., p. 6. [182] Ibid., p. 9. [183] U.N. Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (1956). [184] UDHR, art. 13; see also, ICCPR, art. 12. The Migrant Workers Convention also protects the right of migrants to enter their country of origin, Migrant Workers Convention, art. 8. [185] See “Current Trends in the Right to Leave and Return,” U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985. [186] UDHR, art. 20. See also, ICCPR, art. 22; Migrant Workers Convention, art. 26. [187] Freedom to organize is one of the four core labor rights identified by the International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (ILO Declaration). According to the ILO Declaration, all ILO members, including Singapore, “have an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights.” International Labour Conference, ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 86th Session, Geneva, June 18,1998. [188] ILO Convention on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (Convention No. 98), 1949, ratified by Singapore October 10, 1965. [189] Human Rights Watch interview with diplomat, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, February 17, 2005. [190] Human Rights Watch interview with Tirtawati (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 28, 2005. [191] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 1, 2005c. [192] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 3, 2005b. [193] Human Rights Watch interview with Ani Khadijah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-eight, Singapore, February 27, 2005. [194] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 1, 2005c. [195] Human Rights Watch interview with Ani Khadijah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-eight, Singapore, February 27, 2005. [196] Human Rights Watch interview with Marites Padilla (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [197] Human Rights Watch interview with Kartika Hatmoko (not her real name), age thirty, Indonesian domestic worker, Singapore, February 27, 2005. [198] Human Rights Watch interview with Rita Yuboc (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [199] Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [200] Human Rights Watch interview with Margarita Ramos (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-six, Singapore, March 2, 2005. [201] Human Rights Watch interview with Marites Padilla (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [202] Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [203] Human Rights Watch interview with Lalitha Ranjanie (not her real name), Sri Lankan domestic worker, age twenty-four, February 27, 2005. [204] Human Rights Watch interview with service provider, private organization aiding migrant workers, Singapore, February 24, 2005. [205] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 1, 2005a. [206] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent. Singapore, March 1, 2005b. [207] Human Rights Watch interview with Ng Cher Pong and Kenneth Yap, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [208] Human Rights Watch interview with Rita Yuboc (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [209] Human Rights Watch interview with Chandrika Das (not her real name), Bangladeshi domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [210] Human Rights Watch interview with Dita Wulansih (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, Singapore, age twenty-two, February 19, 2005. [211] Human Rights Watch interview with Endang Utari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [212] Human Rights Watch interview with Ng Cher Pong and Kenneth Yap, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [213] Human Rights Watch interview with Rita Yuboc (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [214] Human Rights Watch interview with Aisyah Fatah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-one, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [215] Human Rights Watch interview with Kartini Wibowo (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [216] Human Rights Watch interview with diplomat, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, February 18, 2005. [217] Ministry of Manpower, “Singapore Report on Wages 2004,” [online], http://www.mom.gov.sg/publications/manpowerresearchnstatistics/annualreports/reportonwagesinsingapore2004.htm (retrieved November 13, 2005), and e-mail correspondence from Foreign Manpower Management Division, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore to Human Rights Watch, November 11, 2005. [218] Human Rights Watch interview with labor agent, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [219] Human Rights Watch interview with Tina Wisnawan (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-four, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [220] Human Rights Watch interview with private organizations aiding migrant workers, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [221] Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [222] List of recommendations drawn up by Indonesian domestic worker focus group, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [223] Human Rights Watch interviews with domestic workers in Singapore, February 19, 21, 25 and March 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10, 2005. [224] Human Rights Watch interview with Ani Khadijah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-four, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [225] Human Rights Watch interview with Endang Utari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [226] Human Rights Watch interview with Sylvia Tobias (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [227] Human Rights Watch interview with Rita Yuboc (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [228] Human Rights Watch interview with Dwiyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [229] Ibid. [230] Human Rights Watch interview with Tirtawati (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 28, 2005. [231] Human Rights Watch interview with Kartini Wibowo (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [232] Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [233] Human Rights Watch interview with Eri Sudewo (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-three, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [234] UDHR, art. 23 and art. 24. [235] CEDAW, art. 11(d) and art. 11(f). [236] Employment Act (Chapter 91), part IV. [237] Human Rights Watch interview with Ng Cher Pong and Kenneth Yap, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [238] Human Rights Watch interview with diplomat, Sri Lanka High Commission, Singapore, February 18, 2005. [239] Human Rights Watch interviews with private organizations aiding migrant workers, Singapore, February 17, 2005 and February 24, 2005. [240] E-mail correspondence from Foreign Manpower Management Division, Ministry of Manpower, to Human Rights Watch, November 11, 2005. [241] Human Rights Watch interview with Ani Khadijah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-four, Singapore, February 19, 2004. [242] Human Rights Watch interview with Adelyn Malana (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [243] Human Rights Watch interview with Ani Khadijah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-four, Singapore, February 19, 2004. [244] Human Rights Watch interview with Dwiyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [245] Human Rights Watch interview with Sylvia Tobias (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, March 9, 2005. Her employer also failed to pay the levy and her salary. [246] Human Rights Watch interview with Eri Sudewo (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-three, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [247] Human Rights Watch interview with Lilia Jornadal (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-five, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [248] Human Rights Watch interview with Mallika Selvi (not her real name), Indian domestic worker, Singapore, March 2, 2005. [249] Human Rights Watch interview with Endang Utari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [250] Human Rights Watch interview with Adelyn Malana (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [251] Human Rights Watch interview with Bayuningsih (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-three, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [252] Human Rights Watch interview with Lalitha Ranjanie (not her real name), Sri Lankan domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [253] For example, Human Rights Watch interview with Sylvia Tobias (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [254] Human Rights Watch interview with Muriyani Suharti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, March 8, 2005. [255] Human Rights Watch interview with Sri Mulyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [256] Human Rights Watch interview with an employment agent, Singapore, March 3, 2005a. [257] Human Rights Watch interview with Rita Yuboc (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [258] Human Rights Watch interview with Pertiwisari (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-one, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [259] Human Rights Watch interview with AEAS executive committee, Singapore, February 24, 2005. [260] Human Rights Watch interview with an employment agent, Singapore, February 28, 2005. [261] Human Rights Watch interview with Muriyani Suharti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, March 8, 2005. [262] Human Rights Watch interview with Budi Puspita (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 20, 2005. [263] Human Rights Watch interview with Marites Padilla (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [264] Human Rights Watch interview with Muriyani Suharti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, March 8, 2005. [265] Ibid. [266] Human Rights Watch interview with Neerangini (not her real name), Indian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, March 1, 2005. [267] Human Rights Watch interview with Ng Cher Pong and Kenneth Yap, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, February 22, 2005. [268] Human Rights Watch interview with Lilia Jornadal (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-five, Singapore, March 9, 2005. [269] Human Rights Watch interview with Aisyah Fatah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-one, Singapore, March 4, 2005. [270] Human Rights Watch interview with Dewi Hariyanti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty, Singapore, February 27, 2005. [271] Human Rights Watch interview with Adelyn Malana (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, February 21, 2005. [272] Human Rights Watch interview with Milagros Baluyot (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [273] Human Rights Watch interview with Lalitha Ranjanie (not her real name), Sri Lankan domestic worker, age twenty-nine, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [274] Human Rights Watch interview with Muriyani Suharti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, March 8, 2005. [275] UDHR, art. 3, ICCPR, art. 6, CRC, art. 6 (right to life); UDHR, art. 5, ICCPR, art. 7, CRC, art. 37 (freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment). [276] Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, G.A. res. 48/104, 48 U.N. GAOR Supp. (no. 49) at 217, U.N. Doc. A/48/49 (1993), art. 4. [277] CEDAW, art. 15, and ICCPR, art. 26. See also, Committee on the Elimination of Violence against Women (CEDAW Committee), General Recommendation 19, Violence against women, (Eleventh session, 1992), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 84 (1994) (contained in document A/47/38), para. 6. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on violence against women has stated, “In the context of norms recently established by the international community, a State that does not act against crimes of violence against women is as guilty as the perpetrators. States are under a positive duty to prevent, investigate and punish crimes associated with violence against women.” Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, “Preliminary Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/45,” (Fiftieth Session), U.N Document E/CN.4/1995/42, November 22, 1994, para. 72. [278] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 19, para. 17-18. [279] Human Rights Watch interview with Sri Mulyani (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [280] Human Rights Watch interview with Kartika Hatmoko (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty, Singapore, February 27, 2005. [281] Human Rights Watch interview with Muriyani Suharti (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-two, Singapore, March 8, 2005. [282] Human Rights Watch interview with Kanthi Unisa (not her real name), Sri Lankan domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 27, 2005. [283] Human Rights Watch interview with Tuti Prihatin (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-six, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [284] Human Rights Watch focus group interview with Indonesian domestic workers, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [285] Human Rights Watch interview with Tuti Prihatin (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-six, Singapore, March 6, 2005. [286] UDHR, art. 18. The right is also articulated in Article 18 of ICCPR, Article 12 of the Migrant Workers Convention, Article 14 of the CRC, and in the U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. ICCPR, art. 18; Migrant Workers Convention, art. 12; Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, U.N.G.A. Res. 36/55, November 25, 1981. [287] Singapore Const., art. XV, § 1. [288] Human Rights Watch interviews with migrant domestic workers and staff from labor-sending countries’ diplomatic missions, Singapore, February, March, and November 2005. [289] E-mail correspondence from the Foreign Manpower Management Division, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore to Human Rights Watch, November 11, 2005 and Human Rights Watch interviews with sending countries’ embassies, Singapore, early March, 2005. [290] E-mail correspondence from the Foreign Manpower Management Division, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore to Human Rights Watch, November 11, 2005. [291] Conditions of Work Permit/Visit Pass for Foreign Workers, section 12, Singapore. [292] Human Rights Watch interview with Nuriah Mahdi (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, February 25, 2005. [293] Human Rights Watch interview with Ani Khadijah (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age thirty-four, Singapore, February 19, 2005. [294] Human Rights Watch interview with Neerangini (not her real name), Indian domestic worker, age thirty-one, Singapore, March 10, 2005. [295] Human Rights Watch interview with Ng Cher Pong, Kenneth Yap, and Wing Git Chan, Foreign Manpower Management Division, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, November 2, 2005. [296] Human Rights Watch interview with Budi Puspita (not her real name), Indonesian domestic worker, age twenty-four, Singapore, February 20, 2005. [297] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 1, 2005. [298] Human Rights Watch interview with Michelle Udarbe (not her real name), Filipina domestic worker, age forty-two, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [299] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, March 1, 2005. [300] Human Rights Watch interview with abortion provider, Singapore, March 11, 2005. [301] Human Rights Watch interview with employment agent, Singapore, February 23, 2005. [302] Human Rights Watch interview with abortion provider, Singapore, March 11, 2005. [303] The cost of an abortion can range from $S300-S$1000 [U.S.$177-590]. [304] ICESCR, art. 12(1). “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has established that states have obligations “to adopt legislation or to take other measures ensuring equal access to health care and health-related services…. States should also ensure that third parties do not limit people's access to health-related information and services. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, The right to the highest attainable standard of living (General Comments), General Comment 14, August 11, 2000, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, para. 35. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is a body of independent international experts charged with monitoring the implementation of the Covenant in each ratifying state. To aid the ratifying states in the implementation of their obligations under the Covenant, the Committee issues general comments which are widely recognized as authoritative interpretations of the rights set forth in the Covenant. [305] CEDAW, art. 12(1). [306] CEDAW, art. 16(e) and ICESCR, art. 12. “The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.” United Nations General Assembly, Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: Fourth World Conference on Women, U.N. Doc. A/Conf.177/20, New York, October 17, 1995 (Beijing Platform for Action), para. 95.
|