Survival, Not Sin: Unpacking Erlinda Ocampo’s Case
When news broke that Ms Pido Erlinda Ocampo, a migrant domestic worker (MDW), had been fined SGD13,000 for working without a valid work pass, many Singaporeans were sympathetic and outraged. Amidst comments that the fine was disproportionate to the offence committed, there were also questions about why Ms Erlinda was penalised in the first place. Was she not simply trying to earn a living and supplement her income, which many individuals do? And just last week, two Italian national swimmers, with diplomatic assistance, were let off with a warning for a case of theft while they were in transit in Singapore.
Screenshots of Facebook commentors outraged about Erlinda’s fine.
Why was Ms Erlinda sanctioned?
Work pass regulations dictate that MDWs may only perform “household and domestic” duties for the employer that they reside with. In other words, an MDW who works for any individual outside of their employer’s household will be considered “moonlighting”.
Restrictions and penalties around the employment conditions of MDWs. Source: Ministry of Manpower.
Why do MDWs work outside their permitted scope of employment?
MDWs’ salaries are low, typically ranging between SGD400 to SGD800 a month. Many of them are single mothers supporting not just their children’s upbringing and education, but also their extended families. Many thus take on additional work in order to supplement what they send home to their families, and also to sustain themselves. There are also no social protections for MDWs and, with their low salaries, there is a need to ensure sufficient savings for when they can no longer engage in domestic work and return to their home countries.
Was justice really served?
Ms Erlinda’s case highlights the rigidity and inequalities embedded in our migrant labour regime. The lives of MDWs are severely restricted: their exclusion from the Employment Act allows employers to control their working hours. They are required to reside with their employers, exposing them to high levels of surveillance and control, including the food they eat, and even how frequently they can speak to their own family members. They are also easily terminated without notice, often with no recourse for unjust dismissals. They have virtually no job mobility, requiring consent from their employers to change jobs even at the end of their work permit terms. In Ms Erlinda’s case, we see that even on their rest days, MDWs remain under strict control that deny them the freedom to pursue a better future for themselves and their families.
Meanwhile, employers who confiscate passports, withhold wages, and make workers labour round the clock with barely any rest days rarely face serious consequences. HOME has assisted thousands of workers to file such complaints but many have been permitted to continue hiring workers despite complaints of abuse and exploitation.
What needs to change?
Labour is not, and should not be, a crime. The current ban on working outside of work pass regulations protects the State’s right to collect foreign worker levies, and keeps migrant labour cheap and immobile. The government might argue that allowing individuals to work outside of work pass regulations will undermine our work pass regime, undercut workers who participate in the labour force through legitimate means, and even expose workers to further exploitation. But exploitation already thrives inside employers’ homes, largely obscured from scrutiny.
Even if we accept the need to protect the labour market, this burden should not fall on workers by punishing them with crippling fines. Sanctions should only be meted out to employers or recruiters who have provided the opportunity for such work.
Punishing individuals such as Ms Erlinda for working outside of their employers’ homes is to punish the financially vulnerable for an honest living. Ms Erlinda’s SGD13,000 fine is easily almost two years of an average MDW’s monthly salary.
The need to earn additional income should not be criminalised. Some MDWs who face mounting financial pressures and who are fearful of contravening work pass conditions may turn to illegal moneylenders to make ends meet. It is not surprising that loanshark harassment among MDWs has been on the rise in Singapore.
Ms Erlinda’s case should be a call to action: employment should never be a crime and domestic work needs to be recognised as real work, so that MDWs have equal labour protections. We need to address their structural vulnerabilities so that low wages, high recruitment debts, tied work permits, forced live-in arrangements, amongst other problems, are reformed.