May 25, 2007
WHENEVER there is a problem, it is usually the employer who ends up taking the blame. No surprises here.
Why? Because it is so easy for the maids to run off to their agents whenever they decide that they do not like working in Malaysia after all.
There are two sides to every story, of course, but I am confident there are hundreds, if not thousands, out there who will agree with me on this one.
So what exactly is the role of the agents here? Aren’t they just middlemen, or if you must insist on a more sophisticated term to describe them, employment facilitators?
Are they party to any agreement with the employer other than to act as agents to procure the maids from their countries? So what gives them the right to “take in” these runaway maids and, in most cases, provide them with temporary re-employment? Who is minding the agents anyway?
I find it very disturbing that the role and conduct of these agents currently do not come under the purview of any government department or local authority.
It is no wonder then that agents readily believe the maid whenever she runs back to them with tales of fictional abuse inflicted upon her by her employer.
It just makes economical sense to believe the maid, that’s why.
In my opinion, until the limits to the role of agents are clearly defined and their activities regulated, we will continue to have this problem of “runaway” maids.
With all due respect to the president of the Malaysian Association of Foreign Housemaids Agencies (Papa), his likening the employer-maid relationship to a marriage and the role of the agent to that of a kadi (The Star, May 23) is a rehashed metaphor used by your member-agents one time too many, I’m afraid.
He sounds like he actually believes it. That’s a shame because to the disgruntled employer of a runaway maid, the agent is just like the ex-boyfriend who entices the would-be bride to elope with another man on the eve of her wedding! Metaphorically speaking, of course!
SECRET AGENT,
Shah Alam, Selangor.
