Considerations for Punitive Actions against Employer of Former Foreign Domestic Worker Parti Liyani for Illegal Deployment

In determining punitive actions for illegal deployment, MOM's key considerations are the degree to which the well-being of the foreign domestic worker has been compromised, and the extent of the illegal deployment. Ms Parti Liyani's case of illegal deployment was handled by MOM in accordance with these considerations.

At the conclusion of MOM's investigations in May 2018, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC, the Ministry took no further action against Mr Liew. A Caution was issued to Mrs Liew and an Advisory Notice to Mr Karl Liew. The actions taken against the three individuals were in line with actions taken by the Ministry against similar cases in the past.

From 2017 to 2019, there was an average of 550 complaints of illegal deployment of foreign domestic workers each year. Of these, MOM took actions against an average of 155 employers per year for illegally deploying their foreign domestic workers. About 60 of them were issued with an Advisory Notice; 80 were issued with a Caution. On average, 16 employers were issued with financial penalties each year, ranging from $3,300 to $24,000.

There is a review on-going for this particular case regarding Ms Parti Liyani's illegal deployment arising from the High Court's observations. MOM will give an update when the review is completed in due course.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I am the Director with the NTUC ARU unit. Usually, an employment agreement ties an employer with an employee legally. So, in this case, I understand that for Ms Parti Liyani, warning letters were issued to Mrs Liew as well as to Mr Karl Liew who were not her employers. So, in this case, may I ask if the MOM will be reviewing this and to see if the MOM would also be responding to why the letters were actually written to Mrs Liew as well as Mr Karl Liew?

In light of the particular vulnerability of foreign domestic workers, we will review our punishment framework and action will be taken against employers in similar illegal deployment cases, regardless of whether they are aware of the illegal deployment. This is to remind the employers that they are ultimately accountable for their foreign domestic workers and should take steps to ensure that their households' deployment of the foreign domestic workers do not contravene the law.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for the reply as well. I understand that the foreign domestic workers or FDWs can be deployed outside their registered address if they are looking after the young children and the senior parents or the elderly parents of the employers. Could I ask whether moving forward, MOM can require a documented consent from the FDW if they are going to be deployed outside the registered address? That way, I think it can sort of resolve some of the disputes that have been raised at MOM level.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for the question. The answer is yes. Currently, employers are required to notify MOM, if they intend to deploy their foreign domestic workers to an address that is different from what is stated in the work permit, particularly if they require the foreign domestic worker to take care of their charges such as young children or the elderly at a relative's home. We are considering ways to enable the employer to be able to notify MOM more effectively so that we can track and approve such cases more consistently.

Sir, I have a question for Minister of State Gan. She mentioned earlier that the review of the cases was such that there was a Caution and Advisory that was issued by MOM that was in line with other similar cases in the past. Can Minister of State Gan clarify the reason for the additional review?

MOM's actions against Mr Liew's family were based on the information available to our investigation officer during the period of the investigation from October 2017 to January 2018. We all know arising from the High Court proceedings, there were observations made and there is a requirement for MOM to take into consideration the additional information provided to us, and hence, the review is on-going.