Screening Criteria for Foreign Domestic Workers beyond Mandatory Health Screening

Mr Speaker, all FDWs are required to undergo a medical examination and be certified by doctors to be medically fit for employment before MOM will issue their work permits. The examination includes screening for infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, HIV, syphilis and malaria to ensure that the FDWs do not pose a risk to our public health. The health screening costs about $70 and is borne by the employer.

While it is possible to add more forms of screening, these will inadvertently increase the employers’ upfront cost of hiring an FDW.

The effectiveness of such additional screening is also uncertain. For instance, any evidence of the FDW’s past criminal or bankruptcy records depends largely on information gained from the FDW’s home country. In addition, while employers can send their FDW to the Institute of Mental Health or private specialist clinics for an assessment if they have specific concerns about the state of mental health of their FDW, it cannot be assumed that the mental well-being of the FDW will remain the same as at the time of assessment. Mental health screening tools can be subjective, and are able to only provide a quick snapshot of one’s mental health at that point of time. There are also many factors that could influence or affect the FDW’s mental state as she tries to settle in and adjust to a new work environment.

Besides health screening, there are many measures already in place to help employers hire suitable FDWs. First, in selecting an FDW, employers have access to the helper’s biodata provided by employment agencies who also conduct interviews with the FDW. In addition, MOM provides employers with information on the FDW’s employment history, such as the number and period of employment she has had in Singapore. Moreover, there is a reference channel which employers can use to contact the FDW’s previous bosses to find out more about her past work experience.

Furthermore, MOM will not approve work permit applications if the FDW has been blacklisted by the Ministry due to previous offences. We will also send back FDWs who are assessed to be underage. At the Settling-in Programme or SIP, FDWs are also reminded of the penalties should they commit an offence. In particular, we highlight that under the Penal Code, there is an enhanced penalty of up to two times the maximum punishment against individuals who abuse vulnerable victims.

It is also important that employers play an active role in the prevention of potential abuse. For instance, when the FDW joins the household, employers can supervise her work closely, take note of her behaviour, and support her in her adjustment to the new environment and work duties.

On our part, MOM works closely with stakeholders to help FDWs better adjust and settle in. For instance, we educate FDWs during SIP on how to cope with stress and seek help when needed. Our non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also provide a range of social activities which are important avenues that help FDWs relieve their stress, share about their challenges and join a network of support.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive answer. I just have one clarification. In relation to the blacklisting, I note that MOM would also blacklists the FDWs if they have committed an offence. I am just wondering whether that is the only threshold for purposes of blacklisting, because there may be other acts or behaviours or conduct of the FDWs that may not amount to an offence but these are things they have done in the course of the work with their previous employers. If the employers give this feedback to MOM, would this be something that MOM would share with prospective employers or put these helpers in a different list so that future employers would not have to face the same difficulties as those previously who had challenges with a particular helper?

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam for her supplementary question. I want to reassure her that other than the blacklist that I talked about, currently, there is a mechanism which is the employer reference channel. Which means that if the employer is trying to recruit a prospective FDW that has worked for previous employers, the previous employer can put in reference, which is available to the prospective employer. So, there is a reference channel that the employer can use to contact the FDW's previous bosses, even if the FDW is not under the blacklist. I want to give her that assurance.

And I also want to reassure the House that MOM is very mindful of the importance of building a good relationship between the employers and the FDWs. Which is why in October last year, MOM announced a series of measures to ensure better matches between the employers and also FDW in a way to better support the employers to finding the FDW that can fit the needs of the household – whether in terms of care-giving duty or to do the domestic work in the family.

There were a few measures and the objective was mainly to make sure that, one, we make available free dispute resolution services for both the employers and also the FDW, through CDE and also through FAST. The second big change that we announced in October last year was to provide more information than we currently do to help the employers and employment agency (EA) find better match in terms of the employers and also FDW. The third one that we announced which will be phased in progressively over the next two years is to ensure that the EA also take greater ownership of the matching outcomes.

So, I want to assure the Member will continue to engage the stakeholders, employers, FDW and also the EAs and NGOs to ensure better match between the employers and the FDW.