MOST employers who are unhappy with the work or behaviour of their maids usually just fire them.
But at least 100 employers have taken it a step further – posting their maids’ details online and griping about their misdeeds and shortcomings.
Their reason – to warn other employers against hiring them.
The New Paper on Sunday has learnt of at least two websites where disgruntled employers have posted their maids’ photos and aired their grouses.
These sites have other content related to hiring maids here.
One such posting, which was accompanied by the maid’s photograph and passport number, said: "I took her as she is a mother of four and thought that she will be more mature and adore kids, but I was wrong."
"She is rude, loud, forgetful (even left the kitchen light on the whole night which happens often), lazy, always tells lies, always shows a black face."
Defame
Two employers who spoke to The New Paper on Sunday said they wrote the postings not to defame the maids, but to warn other potential employers.
One of them said: "My maid listened to music and ignored my sick baby’s cries. It’s not a crime but it’s still the wrong attitude."
"Many Singaporeans have maids and we trust them to look after our children and aged parents. So I felt there was a need for other people to be aware of what this maid did."
Employers can ask the Manpower Ministry (MOM) to blacklist errant maids, but these employers said they did not do so as they found it a hassle.
Lawyers The New Paper on Sunday spoke to said that some of the posts on the site could be libellous as employers were attacking the characters of their maids.
However, the creators of the two websites were unfazed when they were informed that the postings could be defaming the maids.
Both of them said they have neither been sued nor received letters of demand from maids.
The administrator of one of the websites, who wanted to be known only by her nickname Tamarind, said: "There’re thousands of honest reviews about restaurants and hotels by customers.
"I have read some very bad comments about certain restaurants in Singapore. The reviewers are only sharing their experiences – is it considered defamatory?"
"We pay maid agencies large amounts of money so when we encounter bad experiences, it is only ethical to warn other customers."
Tamarind, a computer programming lecturer, said she started the site after she changed seven maids in four years.
Three had emotional and medical problems, two had poor work attitudes, another had boyfriends in the neighbourhood while the seventh was inept, she claimed.
Tamarind recently hired her eighth maid, an Indonesian whom she described as being devoted to her family.
She said: "I have lost a lot of money, and have also been emotionally traumatised dealing with bad maids. Later, I joined Internet forums and read that many other employers have had the same, or even worse experiences than myself."
Mr Wilson Wu, who runs the second website, said employers began flaming their maids as far back as 2004.
He said the site originally began as a portal in 2000 for maid agencies to post their domestic workers’ biodata for potential employers to browse through.
Gradually, said Mr Wu, employers began flaming their former maids on the site.
While one lawyer said the postings could be potentially defamatory, she added that employers have nothing to worry about if they can prove what the maids did.
Lawyer Doris Chia explained: "The postings are only defamatory if they are not true or if they can’t be proven."
"If the employers have proof of the maids’ misbehaviour, then they are justified in writing those things."
Another defence the websites and the employers have is qualified privilege since they talk about hiring maids, said MsChia.
She explained: "People who visit the forums are either maid employers or are interested in hiring maids. So they have an interest in receiving the information in the posts."
Deplorable
Still, Mr John Gee, president of foreign advocacy group Transient Workers Count Too, found the employers’ actions deplorable.
He said: "If the employers aren’t happy with their domestic workers’ performance, they should just return them to the agency or fire them."
"They shouldn’t be complaining about them online, because these workers don’t have the means to defend themselves."
Mr Allan Wee, vice-president of the Association of Employment Agencies in Singapore, said it is futile for employers to flame their maids.
He said: "It’s useless if the employers don’t bother to blacklist the maids and prefer to just rant about them. This is because the maids can continue working here."
A MOM spokesman said employers can provide feedback on their maids by writing directly to the ministry.
She said: "MOM will review such feedback and take appropriate action based on the facts and circumstances of each case."
