Instead of banning maid abusers from rehiring, consider these options
Should employers who abuse their domestic helpers be barred from hiring such workers? The writer suggests three alternatives to a ban.
When Zariah Mohd Ali and Mohamad Dahlan were convicted of abusing a domestic worker in 2001, the district court described their conduct as “cruel and mindless” and having “a strong element of torture”.
The couple have now abused another domestic worker in an even more shocking manner ("Abusive couple strikes again: 11 years' jail for woman whose assaults left helper with deformed ear, broken finger”; Aug 1).
Should those with a history of such cruelty, such as Zariah and Dahlan, be given a second chance to hire a domestic worker?
One may instinctively say no. After all, Zariah and Dahlan have clearly abused their second chance.
Yet, under our system of criminal justice, all but the worst offenders are to have the opportunity to demonstrate that their sentence has rehabilitated and deterred them, causing them to change for the better.
While this is difficult to accept, the alternative — taken to its extreme — is to give up on the possibility of deterrence and rehabilitation in favour of sheer incapacitation.
We certainly could prevent reoffending by abandoning the Yellow Ribbon Project, stopping rehabilitative programmes in prisons, and sentencing anybody who has committed a crime to life imprisonment or death. But we do not do this because of our commitment to the belief that people can mend their ways.
That is not to say we should not protect potential victims. Nor does it mean those like Zariah and Dahlan do not deserve severe punishment.
Instead, the challenge is in balancing the need to give offenders a second chance with the need to guard against the risk of reoffending.
When it comes to hiring foreign domestic workers, the Ministry of Manpower’s website states that an employer who has committed crimes, such as abusing a domestic worker, may be prohibited from hiring another domestic worker. The period of debarment “depends on the severity of the offences”, adds the ministry.
Does this rule strike a satisfactory balance?
One may say it does not go far enough and argue for a blanket ban on those with convictions from ever hiring domestic workers.
Yes, perhaps Zariah and Dahlan should have been banned from hiring another domestic worker.
But can we say the same of a person who has, in an isolated incident, used abusive language towards a worker and since repented? Would a blanket ban be appropriate?
There are alternatives to a ban — temporary or permanent. These suggestions are hardly perfect, but I offer them for consideration:
· Require a prospective employer to place a large deposit that will be forfeited if the employer reoffends.
· Require a prospective employer to disclose his criminal history to a prospective domestic worker, to allow the worker to make an informed decision.
· Require domestic workers to undergo regular checkups by professionals trained to spot signs of abuse.
ABOUT THE WRITER:
Benjamin Joshua Ong is an assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University.
Have views on this issue or a news topic you care about? Send your letter to voices [at] mediacorp.com.sg with your full name, address and phone number.
