'Sometimes you just need the money': Maids, experts say punitive measures on moonlighting too harsh, insufficient
Lucky Plaza was largely deserted on a Friday afternoon in September, save for a handful of domestic workers running errands for employers or seeking money remittance services.
Among them was a 41-year-old Filipina helper, lugging a bag of groceries that almost seemed larger than her. The unkempt strands of hair framed her tired face, and bloodshot eyes betrayed a bone-deep fatigue.
Declining to be named, she told The New Paper that she works for a family of four with teenage children, and also cares for their elderly relatives.
She is a single mother of two, scraping by on a salary of $600 a month - only $400 of which she can send back to her family, after agency deductions and daily expenses.
"I wish I could moonlight, although I can't," she said. "But sometimes you just need the money."
She said that her employer is strict, disallowing her from interacting with other helpers or taking on part-time work, and often keeping her occupied with household chores - sometimes even on rest days.
Of the 11 helpers TNP spoke to, many said they knew of friends who moonlighted, but none admitted to doing it themselves.
Worked extra, fined $13,000
The recent case of a helper punished for moonlighting left many shocked at the heavy penalties imposed, sparking debate on whether such penalties are justified.
Pido Erlinda Ocampo, 53, was fined $13,000 for working for two unofficial employers on her rest days. She earned an extra $375 a month from one part-time employer for nearly two years, and $450 a month for six months from another.
Her unofficial employers, Soh Oi Bek and Pulak Prasad, were fined $7,000 and $4,000 respectively.
According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) website, foreign domestic workers who moonlight are liable to a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for two years. They may also have their work permits revoked and be banned from working in Singapore.
MOM told TNP that between 2020 and 2024, it took action against more than 80 helpers each year for moonlighting.
'Is this really necessary?'
On the subreddit r/singapore, user Axejoker1 posted about the case with the caption: "Is this really necessary? 53-year-old in Singapore for 30 years means more than half of her life in Singapore."
"Just kinda feel bad for her trying to make an honest living," said the user.
The post garnered over 800 upvotes and 200 comments, with many netizens questioning the punishment. Some described her part-time work as "consistent, honest work".
One noted: "To the prosecution, the fine is probably a drop in a bucket. But to a maid who only earns a couple hundred bucks per month, that's a lot."
Others said the fine seemed "out of proportion to the crime", and pointed out the "double standards" since locals are allowed to take on multiple jobs as long as they earn below a certain threshold.
Is moonlighting deserving of high penalties?
When asked what they thought of the fine, many helpers - all of whom declined to be named - told TNP that the penalties were excessive.
"Many people do it for different reasons," a 47-year-old said. "Some do it to send money back home. If they really need the money, they don't have a choice."
Helpers also noted that their salaries, which typically range from $500 to $800, are insufficient to cope with Singapore's high cost of living and support their families overseas.
A 51-year-old noted that even rest days become valuable moments that helpers can spend earning just a bit extra, as most would not want to "waste time" on their days off.
"Some employers even allow their maids to moonlight, because they 'pity' them," she added.
Current penalties too harsh: Analysts
The University of Oslo's Professor Laavanya Kathiravelu, an expert in labour migration, said that moonlighting should not be dealt with as harshly as it currently is, as it does not cause significant social harm and emphasised the need for better protection for helpers instead.
In fact, said Prof Kathiravelu, it plugs important gaps in the labour market as domestic workers are willing and available to provide affordable and flexible labour.
Sociologist Zhan Shaohua of Nanyang Technological University said that while penalties may deter such practices, they might force helpers towards other illegal forms of obtaining money like financial loans.
"This, in turn, can trap them in debt and further worsen their financial situation," Prof Zhan said.
'Punishing the financially vulnerable': HOME
In a statement, the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics (HOME) said that "labour is not, and should not be, a crime".
HOME highlighted the controlled working hours, high levels of surveillance, and low job mobility that domestic workers face, describing the fine as "crippling".
"Punishing individuals such as Ms Erlinda for working outside of their employers' homes is to punish the financially vulnerable for an honest living," said HOME, calling for domestic work to be recognised as real work and equal labour protections for domestic workers.
When TNP reached out to Pido through Home, she declined to be interviewed. TNP understands that the fine has been settled, but it is not known who paid it. It is also unclear if she is still permitted to work in Singapore.
MOM: Moonlighting causes ambiguity in employee accountability
In response to TNP's queries, an MOM spokesperson explained that penalties are determined based on various factors, such as the length of the offence and whether the helper broke the law wilfully.
The spokesperson added that moonlighting makes the employer accountability structure unclear: "Should a migrant domestic worker fall ill or sustain injuries while working elsewhere, the official employer remains liable for her upkeep and medical costs, even though the injury occurred outside their direct supervision and control."
Employers who hire moonlighting workers also create an uneven playing field by circumventing work pass controls, added the spokesperson.
One employer, who has hired seven helpers over the past 23 years, agreed with MOM's strict approach to moonlighting.
"I think MOM should still remain very strict on it, because at the end of the day, we're dealing with life, and liabilities," said the 52-year-old who works in the property industry and declined to be named, describing legalisation of moonlighting as "opening the flood gates".
"As it is, managing domestic help now as compared to 20, 30 years ago is quite different because they are becoming a bit bolder and more selective of employers as well," she added.
Nevetheless, she allows her current helper to work for her relatives once or twice a year, paying her extra if she has to work on rest days. "If you want to work part-time, do it with someone you know," she said.
Illegal deployment causes extra work for helpers
Helpers also raised concerns about employers informally assigning them to work for relatives, sometimes even on rest days.
HOME reported eight to 10 complaints a month from helpers, calling for clearer regulations that protect helpers from such situations.
Such cases differ from moonlighting, as illegal deployment occurs when the employer instructs the helper to work elsewhere, while moonlighting involves helpers seeking part-time employment independently.
For illegal deployment of helpers, employers may be liable to a financial penalty of up to $10,000.
Root causes left unaddressed, experts propose solutions
Experts stressed that while current measures deter some helpers from moonlighting, they are insufficient in tackling underlying causes.
Social worker Jolovan Wham, a vocal advocate for domestic helpers, said that punitive measures like fining only push the problem further underground: "Instead of addressing low pay or debt bondage of agency fees, the burden falls on the worker for trying to survive."
Prof Zhan also acknowledged the need to address demand for flexible, part-time services that are often filled by moonlighters. "The government could consider creating or regulating digital platforms to facilitate such arrangements, making part-time domestic services more accessible and affordable for ordinary households," he said.
Prof Kathiravelu agreed, adding that an alternative would be to allow helpers to work part-time on their days off, under contracts that ensure timely payment and protection.
Raising wages could also be an option, which reduces their need for moonlighting.
A 39-year-old Indonesian helper who has considered moonlighting but fears the penalties, told TNP that her monthly salary of $700 is insufficient to provide for her family.
"I need the money, so I can't go back," said the single mother of four, adding that she not been able to visit her children in her seven years of working in Singapore.
"I also miss my children, but I have no choice."
