Pay $67,00 hospital bill for maid? Not me

i don't get many chances to read the newspaper, whether online or offline (alas, one of the hazards of being a full-time SAHM). But if i do, i get very irritated when i read stories about errant maids, unfair employment laws and MOM officials who seem to live in a cloud in a sky... (and who seem to have never had kids or to hire maids to look after them)

So i was particularly disturbed when i read about the story of this maid, Nina, who got pregnant, kept it from her employer, managed to escape detection by the doctor, went to KKH, got herself an expensive caesarean operation to deliver the baby and chalked up $67,000 in hospital bills!!

Guess who the hospital is now chasing for payment - her employer!!

i find this so ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the story of the other maid who climbed out of the window of her agent's flat, fell 6 or so storeys down and injured herself so badly she incurred more than $70,000 in hospital bills - all of which were sent to her employer.

Why do such stupid things happen to such stupid people (the maids, i mean)?? Does the government honestly and reasonably expect non-corporate employers - many of whom are young couples trying to raise young children under a tight budget - to bear responsibility for ALL the medical and hospitalisation costs of their FDWs, without limit?? If even big companies and their insurance firms know how to impose limitations on the amount of medical benefits they mete out to employees, how much more should non-corporate employers?? It just doesn't make any sense.

So i took out my pen (er, MS Word) and started writing (typing) a letter to ST Forum. It was a bit long, so i don't know if they'll publish it (they have published 3 of my letters before, but those were short and sweet :-). Let's hope that even if they don't, MOM officials will wake up one day and realise how much damage they're doing with their one-size-fits-all regulations that don't fit in with how things really work in the real world.


Your recent story about an employer who was made responsible for the $67,000 hospital bill of her errant maid raises many alarming issues for all the FDW employers here in Singapore.

Firstly, in the working world, there are very few (and possibly none) companies or employers who are required, by law, to pay ALL medical and hospital bills of their employees, without limit. Most corporate employers rely on insurance plans to cover their employees’ medical costs; and these insurance plans (or corporate health policies) will normally impose a limit on how much an employee may claim towards his medical or hospitalisation costs. Not only is this fair to both the employer and employee, it also prevents irresponsible behaviour on the employee’s part (e.g. deliberate self-injury).

Many health plans also impose conditions that exclude certain medical claims, such as in the case of illegitimate births or pregnancies/conditions that were not declared prior to the start of the insurance period.

Recently, the Ministry of Manpower made it compulsory for all FDW employers to purchase medical insurance for their maids. Even though this increased the financial burden of hiring maids, many employers had no choice but to comply with this new requirement.

Since all FDWs are now covered by medical insurance, employers should no longer be made responsible for all other health, medical or dental costs that their maids incur while working here in Singapore. This would not only be fairer to the employer, it would also prevent the FDW from taking unfair advantage of her employer.

Secondly, it is time that the Ministry of Manpower implements laws and regulations that protect FDW employers as well. As taxpayers who pay $170 or more every month for the right to hire maids, surely we deserve better than to be on the losing end every time an errant maid gets pregnant, does her job badly, steals our money or breaks her contract prematurely.

For example, in cases where the maid is clearly in the wrong or has done something illegal, she should bear responsibility for all her own medical or repatriation costs. In the case of Nina who delivered at KKH without informing her employer, both she and her friend Shushma should be held responsible for the $67,000 bill. Another party that could be held liable is the doctor who failed to detect her pregnancy in the first place.

Another question that has to be asked is this: Why did the hospital admit Nina in the first place, knowing that she was an FDW (hence illegal for her to deliver a baby in Singapore)? If the undertaking signed by her friend (presumably a maid too) was to be deemed worthless by the hospital, why did they accept this undertaking in the first place and not seek consent from her employer instead?