Singapore Expats

I'm still quite new to the Singaporean way of life, so go easy on me

I was sat at the pool this Sunday and all of a sudden there was two of our guards who was yelling at this poor little girl in the pool. I later learned that it was a maid who was doing swimming lessons with two small children and they wanted her out of the pool. Reason being that maids are not allowed to enter the pool or jacuzzis... Is that a normal rule ? And if it is, what's the point ?

don't you know, say it bluntly, maids are domestic slaves in this country?

indeed, you are new.

renter wrote:don't you know, say it bluntly, maids are domestic slaves in this country?

indeed, you are new.

Yeah sorry about that. We all gotta start somewhere right I had heard maids were treated bad, just never guessed it was this bad... makes me feel a bit sad that but I'm probably just a softie

jezzman wrote:

renter wrote:don't you know, say it bluntly, maids are domestic slaves in this country?

indeed, you are new.

Yeah sorry about that. We all gotta start somewhere right I had heard maids were treated bad, just never guessed it was this bad... makes me feel a bit sad that but I'm probably just a softie

However discrimination is against the law in Singapore, and I wouldn't be surprised if something wasn't said, if a complaint was submitted.

If it was my maid, i would certainly look into it, and report the security to management, if that didn't help, then report to the proper authorities the police then the New Paper. They should be fined, for such behaviour and everyone should be notified that it will not be tolerated in Singapore.

ksl wrote: However discrimination is against the law in Singapore, and I wouldn't be surprised if something wasn't said, if a complaint was submitted.

Since when?

Were discrimination laws enacted last night while I was sleeping? There are no laws against discrimination here. They say "you shouldn't discriminate" but they nowhere say you "cannot discriminate"! The entire HDB housing policy is based on discrimination. Any policy that says you cannot live somewhere based on your race (regardless of how much money you have) is discrimination regardless of the reasons for doing so.

ksl wrote:

jezzman wrote:

renter wrote:don't you know, say it bluntly, maids are domestic slaves in this country?

indeed, you are new.

Yeah sorry about that. We all gotta start somewhere right I had heard maids were treated bad, just never guessed it was this bad... makes me feel a bit sad that but I'm probably just a softie

However discrimination is against the law in Singapore, and I wouldn't be surprised if something wasn't said, if a complaint was submitted.

If it was my maid, i would certainly look into it, and report the security to management, if that didn't help, then report to the proper authorities the police then the New Paper. They should be fined, for such behaviour and everyone should be notified that it will not be tolerated in Singapore.

It is very likely the management that asked the security to do this.

as SMS said, unlike the US, Singapore has no such law.

Not that this justifies the discrimination, but... most condos specify that only owners, registered tenants and (in some cases) their guests can use condo facilities like pools or the gym, and maids are not considered any of these groups. What's more, I'll bet that you agreed to this in writing when you signed up for your condo ID card...

Of course, if you really want to watch Singaporean heads explode and you have it in writing that guests can use facilities, you could give your maid the day off, invite her to visit your condo as a guest, make sure she signs the guest register, and then let her splash away to her heart's content.

sundaymorningstaple wrote:

ksl wrote: However discrimination is against the law in Singapore, and I wouldn't be surprised if something wasn't said, if a complaint was submitted.

Since when?

Were discrimination laws enacted last night while I was sleeping? There are no laws against discrimination here. They say "you shouldn't discriminate" but they nowhere say you "cannot discriminate"! The entire HDB housing policy is based on discrimination. Any policy that says you cannot live somewhere based on your race (regardless of how much money you have) is discrimination regardless of the reasons for doing so.

I was under the impression "The Sedition Act" which is law, covers circumstance like the one of foreign race being in swimming pools...irrelevance of social position or occupation.

I don't have the Seditition Act although this blog shines a little light.
http://singasingapore.blogspot.com/2005 ... n-act.html


It would be in this instance an act of sedition against Singapore government, to actually tell maids or any other foreign national to get out of the pool, because of their social standing...this is a direct, provocation of racial disharmony.

If the maid is living within the residence, she is also covered by the employers insurance, if management disagree, then on what grounds!

she could be invited has their guest, and sign the book like JP says.

Basically my point is, that it should not be tolerated, if there are procedures to follow, all well and good.

But for any security to even dream of stopping maids, while maids are covered by the emplyers insurance, would cause me to request a detailed explanation.

Any reason whatsoever, that causes unrest of racial harmony is an act of sedition against government. I mean if a poll was needed, it wouldn't be difficult to get feedback, to prove, this is an act of racial or social provocation.

Of course it would be up to the lawyers to fight for the stage and popularity!

or get a ang moh maid.

ksl,

I think that you will find that the only legal way was what durain suggested. I believe you will find that the maid is not a tenant although living there. The tenant has a family relationship with those who live with him, but the relationship between the tenant and the maid is a commercial one and therefore cannot be considered a "resident" of the complex although she is staying there at the express wish of the employer. At least this is what has been used to defend against the prohibition in the past. Has nothing to do with "sedition" but contractual definitions.

sundaymorningstaple wrote:ksl,

I think that you will find that the only legal way was what durain suggested. I believe you will find that the maid is not a tenant although living there. The tenant has a family relationship with those who live with him, but the relationship between the tenant and the maid is a commercial one and therefore cannot be considered a "resident" of the complex although she is staying there at the express wish of the employer. At least this is what has been used to defend against the prohibition in the past. Has nothing to do with "sedition" but contractual definitions.

But who's going to help the kids in the pool, if mum and dad are not available I also heard, that swim tutors, have to pay a fee, to the condo? Maybe that's what its all about MONEY!

durain wrote:or get a ang moh maid.

Ha hit the nail on the head!

or maybe tell the guard the maid is your mistress, so on a technicality, she should be able to swim in the pool.

Singapore is such that many people staying on the island to equate status to wealth. Therefore, to stay in condo actually means that a person is quite well off. Based on that kind of measuring cateria, maids definitely fall into the "untouchables" as they are the poorest among the poor in Singapore. Hence, I guess I know why the maid got chased out of the pool Terrible, but this is Singapore. We can only slowly refine our fellow Singaporeans.

True, but always remember one simple truth. And this goes for courtesy, consideration, and all other social acts (or anti-social acts): "If you are not part of the solution then you become part of the problem!"

What this means is if you see something that is wrong and don't attempt to change it then you become part of the problem as your seeing and not letting the other person know it's wrong mean tacit acceptance by you therefore telling the wrongdoer that it's okay to do it.