Micromanagement of foreign domestic workers in Singapore: The influence of state regulations and laws

Abstract

Based on 30 in-depth interviews with employers in Singapore, this article examines how and why employers engage in micromanagement of foreign workers. The results suggest that government laws and regulations influence employers’ exercise of power of the workers. The S$5000 security bond and the day-off regulation shift the responsibility of policing the foreign domestic worker from the state onto the employers. Although some employers may choose to refrain from micromanaging their domestic workers, most employers perceive micromanagement as their legal entitlement. Employers who micromanage their domestic workers tend to engage in micromanagement of three key areas of worker life: their daily routine, social circle, and movement. Therefore, micromanagement is a tool that employers frequently use to guarantee that their S$5000 security bond will not be forfeited.

1. Introduction

Singapore is one of the world's most prosperous countries, with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) equal to that of leading nations of Western Europe; per capita GDP as of 2020 for Singapore is US$58,114, which is roughly comparable to that of Denmark (US$61,477) and Sweden (US$53,575) [1]). However, the country faces a declining birth rate, an ageing population, a rising cost of living, and an increasing number of women entering the workforce [2,3]. As of 2021, the country's fertility rate has dropped to 1.12 per female, dropping from 1.96 per female in 1988 [4]. The old-age support ratio (the ratio of the working-age population, 20–64 years, per person aged 65 years and over) has declined from 10.5 in 1990 to merely 3.8 in 2022 [5]. These factors have led to the importation of migrant workers to reduce the labour shortage, with domestic workers for caregiving and house cleaning being especially needed in Singapore.

Singapore is a popular migrant destination, as evident in a rising number of foreign domestic workers each year. In 2015, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) allocated 231,500 work permits to foreign domestic workers, and in 2019, the number increased to 261,8001 [6]. Domestic workers in Singapore come from various countries, including India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. Migrant workers from neighbouring countries are attracted by the higher wages they can earn in Singapore [[7], [8], [9]].

The Kafala system, also known as the sponsorship system, was developed in the 1950s from the Bedouin principle of hospitality. The Kafala system is applied by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to foreigners, including migrant workers. Under this system, the host vouches for the foreigner and is responsible for the foreigner's behaviour and safety during their visit. The Kafala system has evolved from its origins and is now the framework for regulating labour flow into the GCC countries. Yet, the Kafala system has been denounced globally because of the asymmetry it creates between employer and migrant worker, leading to worker dependence and a high potential for human rights violations [[10], [11], [12], [13], [14]].

Although it is not a GCC country and does not specifically employ the Kafala system, Singapore has adopted a similar sponsorship system for domestic workers, whose legal status in Singapore is similar to the status of such workers in other destinations around the globe. To maintain legal residency, foreign domestic workers must have a sponsoring employer; the worker must live with the employer, and the worker is not allowed to work for more than one household. In addition, to change employers, a foreign domestic worker must secure written consent from the employer-sponsor [15]. Consequently, domestic workers are highly dependent on their employers.

To legally hire a foreign domestic worker in Singapore, an employer must comply with state laws and regulations. One of the key prerequisites to employing a domestic worker in Singapore is to buy a S$5000 security bond. This bond is returned to the employer upon cancellation of the work permit, the domestic worker returning home, and a determination that no security bond conditions have been breach [16]. The bond is forfeited, however, in the event of illegal behaviour on the part of the foreign worker—for example, getting pregnant and/or running away.2 Therefore, many employers believe that it is their duty to micromanage3 their workers.

In this article, I examine, from the perspective of employers, how and why state regulations and laws encourage micromanagement of domestic workers. Fundamentally, employers believe that to make the most of their investment in a migrant domestic worker, they must make sure that the domestic worker conforms to their household rules. To accomplish this, they adopt various strategies to micromanage their domestic workers—these strategies are examined in this article.

The article begins by providing an overview of the circumstances that lead employers to micromanage their domestic workers. This is followed by a discussion of the literature on employer management styles and that on the status of domestic workers. Subsequently, I describe the methodology of the study and the characteristics of sample. I then present the results, which suggest that although MOM legal regulations apply to all employers, they do not compel all employers to engage in micromanagement. Lastly, I present a discussion of the results and conclusions, summarising the research findings and offering a policy recommendation.

2. Literature review

2.1. The development of laws and regulations regarding migrant domestic workers in Singapore

In 1978, the Singapore government introduced the Foreign Maid Scheme to facilitate the hiring of domestic workers. Migrant domestic workers are excluded from the Employment Act and the Work Injury Compensation Act. This results in lack of regulation of working hours and overtime pay. The government attempt to take control of the employment of domestic workers is clearly seen in the new guideline of 1986. Both pregnancy and marriage between Singaporeans and foreign domestic workers are outlawed. Further, migrant domestic workers had to do a pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases screenings every six months. Employers were required to purchase a S$5000 bond to cover the deportation of migrant domestic worker if the migrant domestic worker married a Singaporean citizen, became pregnant, participated in non-domestic work, engaged in illegal activity, or overstayed her work permit [17].

While most of the laws passed in the 1980s only addressed the economic effects of migrant domestic workers, several “maid abuse” incidents in the 1990s prompted the development of regulations that aim to give migrant domestic workers more protection [17]. Beginning in 2004, the advocacy efforts of Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) has benefited migrant domestic workers in Singapore. The organisations increase public awareness of domestic workers' working circumstances and the two organisations' united campaign led to a successful legal reform that legislate a weekly day off for domestic workers beginning on 1 January 2013 [9].

2.2. Laws and regulations influence employer domestic management behaviours

State laws and regulations influence employers' treatment of domestic workers. On the one hand, laws and regulations help ensure a good standard of living for the domestic workers. On the other hand, they impose a number of requirements and responsibilities on employers. To hire a foreign domestic worker, a prospective employer in Singapore must attend the Employers’ Orientation Programme (EOP), apply for a work permit for their foreign domestic worker, provide personal accident insurance, medical insurance, and regular medical examinations for the worker, and buy a S$5000 security bond [15,16]. Thus, employing a foreign worker is a highly regulated activity.

Although many studies have addressed the influence of state regulation on domestic worker employment, most have not examined how a state regulatory regime influences employers and whether regulation leads to micromanagement behaviours [10,12,14,[18], [19], [20]]. Many studies, with few exceptions (e.g. [9,21]), have discussed how employers have absolute control over the employees but have neglected the issue of whether and how state laws and regulations influence employers' exercise of power. The power relation between employer and foreign worker has largely been characterised as unidimensional due to the employer's superior class position, which is complemented by factors such as race and gender biases [21].

Parreñas [22] has successfully discussed how the state manages to discipline domestic workers using both laws and education. This article extends the discussion and shows that in order to make foreign domestic workers fully conform to the state regulations and laws, the state disciplines employers, who then as a result micromanage foreign domestic workers. To fill the gap in the literature, this article considers how the structural forces of government laws and regulations influence employers’ micromanagement behaviours and how micromanagement affects domestic workers. I demonstrate how the regulatory scheme compels many employers to treat their domestic workers with strict discipline. Key regulatory factors that influence employers are the S$5000 security bond and the weekly day off mandated by the MOM.

2.3. Employer management styles

Employers across the world manage their domestic workers differently. Scholars (for example [21,[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]], have taken various approaches to categorising employers’ management styles, but despite the categories being named differently, similar management styles and overlap are evident across studies.

One of the most popular management styles is maternalism, which can be defined as a one-way relationship where the employer provides gifts, charity, unsolicited advice, and assistance to their worker. This style induces in the employee a sense of obligation to repay the employer with job commitment, loyalty, and extra hours. In a maternalistic relationship, the employee is conceived of as child-like, deficient, and needy; thus, it undermines the employee's dignity and value, but the employer receives recognition and self-validation from the domestic worker. Maternalism consequently entrenches the class inequality between employers and employees [23,24,26,27].

Personalism is a two-way relationship in which both the employer and employee recognise each other as individuals with a unique set of social relations and particular aspirations, but the relationship is still asymmetrical. Employers often use personalistic relations to mask low salaries, lack of benefits, and no overtime pay [23].

Over the years, there has been a shift in employer attitude towards domestic workers from one of maternalism [26] to personalism [23]. Hondagneu-Sotelo [23] argues that maternalism among employers has declined and find that most Latina employees prefer their employers to interact with them in a more personal manner. However, employers prefer to keep their distance and maintain the employer/employee boundary because personalism would obligate them to care about their employee, thereby limiting their power to control them [23]. In essence, employees yearn for a two-way relationship while employers prefer a one-way relationship.

In Global Cinderellas: Migrant Domestics and Newly Rich Employers in Taiwan, apart from reemphasising maternalism and personalism, Lan [24] introduces two new employer management styles: distant hierarchy and business relationship.

Distant hierarchy is grounded in deferential performance of tasks by domestic workers, which is reflected in their use of language, gesture, and space. Many employers who adopt the distant hierarchy approach use condescending verbal expressions and distant body language towards their domestic workers. Additionally, they will assign tasks aimed at displaying the worker's subservience [24].

In a business relationship, there is mutual respect for the employer's and the worker's private space and rest time. Employers who adopt a business-oriented relationship are mostly double-income households. These employers wish to make the best use of their free time after work, and this involves minimising personal interactions with their domestic workers. This business-only approach is more practical when housework (e.g., cooking, shopping, and housecleaning) is the predominant aspect of the job rather than care work (e.g., care for children and/or the elderly) [24].

Some studies on domestic workers have focused on employer management style. Macdonald [25], for instance, categorised employer management style into three types: 1) puppeteer management, 2) paranormal management, and 3) partnership management.

A puppeteer manager will create rules, reporting procedures, and monitoring strategies to produce consistent childcare for their children. To control the nanny, the employer will adopt Taylorist scheduling and indirect restrictions on time use and movements. These restrictions are intended to minimise the effects of differences between the mother and the nanny's cultural backgrounds, personal styles, and social classes and to limit the nanny's autonomy. This relationship is based on one-way communication, as the caregiver is expected to carry out the employer's mandates.

By contrast, employers with the paranormal management style believe that they can trust the nanny's judgment, believing it to mirror their own. These employers hold the view that their nanny will understand intuitively how they wish their children to be raised and will naturally make the same decisions that they would make. This assumption removes the need for even one-way communication.

A partnership management style involves two-way communication and mutual learning. Mothers and caregivers share decision-making concerning the children's daily activities and ideas about discipline and development. Mothers and caregivers see each other as partners who bring different but valuable skills to the task of child-raising. Overall, Macdonald's [25] categories of puppeteer and partnership management are similar to maternalism and personalism, respectively, although the details vary. Table 1 summarizes the employer management styles and characteristics.

Table 1.

Employer management styles and characteristics

	Management style
Characteristics	Domestic workers				Childcare workers
	Maternalism	Personalism	Distant hierarchy	Business relationship	Puppeteer management	Paranormal management	Partnership management
Direction of relationship/communication	One-way relationship	Two-way relationship	One-way relationship	One-way relationship	One-way communication	Communication unnecessary	Two-way communication
Employers	Provide gifts, charity, unsolicited advice, and assistance	Care for the employee and recognition of their dignity and value	Use condescending verbal expressions and distant body language towards their workers	Respect for worker’s private space and rest time	Create rules, reporting procedures, and monitoring strategies	Trust the nanny’s judgment	Share decision-making about children’s daily activities
Workers	Child-like, deficient, and needy	Unique individuals with particular aspirations	Invisible	Respect for employer’s private space and rest time	In need of Taylorist scheduling	Will naturally make the same decisions that they make	Share decision-making about children’s daily activities
Employer expectations	Job commitment, loyalty, and extra hours	Job commitment, loyalty, and extra hours	Address them with respectful terms and subservience	Minimise interactions with them	Carry out their decisions and produce consistent childcare for their children	Trust the nanny’s judgment as mirroring their own	Partners who bring different but valuable skills to child-raising

Source: Table created by author, adapted from Hondagneu-Sotelo [23], Lan [24], Macdonald [25], Rollins [26] and Romero [27].

Overall, employers vary significantly in their approaches to disciplining their domestic workers. Some treat their foreign domestic workers as though they bought them, whereas others use modern discipline methods: lists of rules, timetables, and regulations. Some employers are liberal and treat their domestic workers as family members [21].

In this article, I demonstrate how state laws and regulations, which are intended to protect and reduce abuse of domestic workers, actually lead many employers to engage in micromanagement. Employers justify the need to micromanage their domestic workers on the basis of their fear of forfeiting the S$5000 security bond due to their worker's violation of the law. In this article, I demonstrate that employers attempt to micromanage three major aspects of their domestic workers' lives: 1) daily routine, 2) social circle, and 3) movement.

3. Methodology

The Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California approved this research (APP-21-04345). This article's findings comes primarily from 30 semi-structured interviews with employers in Singapore in 2014. All participants provided informed consent. The interviews followed an interview guide, and the employers were asked about the employment history of their workers, the employment process, their work expectations and standards, and their awareness and perceptions of domestic employment law. Further, participants were encouraged to share other information that might be helpful to the research. Singapore was chosen as it is a popular destination for migrant domestic workers. In 2019, MOM issued 261,800 work permits to foreign domestic workers [6]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the interviews ranged from thirty to 90 minutes. In addition, I interviewed community leaders (e.g., staff at the Philippines Embassy and nongovernmental organisations), local researchers who have studied domestic workers and employment agency owners. The research participants' response rate was 80%.

I sought research participants at various locations (such as plazas, parks, and event venues) and in various neighbourhoods in order to get a diverse sample. In addition, I distributed and posted flyers at local associations and housing communities and relied on my personal and professional networks to find potential interviewees. Typically, the interviews took place at the respondents’ workplaces, restaurants, or residences. Except for two, all interviews were tape-recorded and fully transcribed. During non-taped interviews, extensive notes were taken. Every interview was conducted in English. My racial background facilitated building rapport with the Asian respondents. In addition, my shared class and racial identities and social status facilitated a level of comfort with the respondents, particularly in the context of respondents discussing issues of cultural clash and challenges they encountered while hiring domestic help. Relying on inductive analysis and grounded theory [29], I used Atlas. ti software to code the field notes and interviews. The main themes in this article emerged unprompted.

3.1. Characteristics of sample

Counter to the widespread belief that foreign domestic workers' employers always have greater socioeconomic standing, my interview sample represented employers of different socioeconomic groups. I assessed the employers’ socioeconomic status on the basis of their profession, education level, residence type, and self-evaluation. For details of the sample characteristics please refer to Appendix A. The respondents included academics, business owners, professional office workers, retail workers, and stay-at-home mothers. Their job titles included clerk, consultant, manager, private company director, researcher, and sales associate. Their education attainment ranged from polytechnic degree to post-tertiary training. Employer residences included apartments, government-subsidised condominiums, large houses with yards, and upscale private condominiums.

Most of the interviewees were women (83%), but as a majority of the participants were married, this suggest that men do not employ domestic helpers less. The majority of employers (83%) are Asian. A minority of the employers (13%) are Caucasian, while 3% are of mixed ancestry. Most employers (70%) identified themselves as Chinese, compared to 7% who identified themselves as Indian. Seventy percent of the employers were Singaporeans; the remaining employers were foreign nationals from South Korea, Great Britain, Australia, and the United States. While some expats have lived in Singapore for more than ten years, others have been there for less than two years. Most expats had lived in Singapore between two and five years. Most employers were married with children (73%). Other participants were single, divorced, or widowed (14%), as well as married couples without kids (13%).

Most studies on domestic work have considered the labour process exclusively from the worker perspective. Noteworthy exceptions include Hondagneu-Sotelo's study [23] regarding Latino domestic workers in Los Angeles, Lan's [24] research of domestic work in Taiwan, and Parreñas et al.’s research [9] on foreign domestic workers in Singapore. This research utilised data collected from employers, which is a relatively novel and advantageous approach compared with most existing studies on domestic work. However, as the research sample included only employers who voluntarily give an interview, the sample might exclude employers who abuse their workers. Thus, this research may exclude the worst-case situations that domestic workers face in Singapore, which could be a cause of sample selection bias. In addition, as the data collection is collected after the security bond requirement and day off regulation are already in place, I cannot isolate the impacts of such regulations. In the following section, I draw from the interviews with thirty employers to explain how and why employers micromanage their domestic workers, how micromanagement relates to state laws and regulations, and how the regulatory scheme affects being an employer of a foreign worker.

4. Results

In Singapore, foreign domestic workers are expected to be law-abiding and be good visitors. To ensure that it happens, the state intentionally disciplines employers. The employers then act as a state apparatus to discipline their foreign domestic workers. To guarantee that an employer carries out the state intention, an employer must comply with several state laws and regulations (attend the EOP, apply for a work permit for the foreign domestic worker, provide personal accident insurance, medical insurance, regular medical examinations, a weekly day off for foreign domestic workers, and buy a S$5000 security bond [15,16]. According to the employers, the process is straightforward but is time-consuming, quite costly, and imposes a considerable burden of responsibility. Many employers perceive the government to be holding them accountable for their domestic workers’ safety and lawful behaviour.

EOP is one of the requirements for an employer who is hiring a foreign domestic worker for the first time or has changed more than three foreign domestic workers within a 12-month period, and want to hire another foreign domestic worker. It is a 3-hour programme that educates the prospective employers of their roles and responsibilities of a foreign domestic worker. The MOM tries to emphasise domestic workers' rights through a mandatory class (online/classroom setting). This class focuses on fundamental human rights such as the rights to food and shelter and punishments for abusing domestic workers [15,30]. This class represents the state efforts to equip employers with knowledge of the recommended labour standards and at the same time the state uses this class to discipline employers and cultivate the compliance of employers to state's authority.

Many employers opined that the government regulations conflict with reality. The government's mandatory day off, for instance, is intended to provide the domestic worker a rest day, and the government clearly states that domestic workers cannot engage in illegal activities (e.g., drinking in public, engaging in a sexual relationship that can result in pregnancy, or working for another household); however, given the inherent attractiveness of these activities, employers worry that their workers will succumb to temptation and complain that they have no practical tools to prevent such behaviours. Further, if the domestic worker is hurt or engages in illegal activities on their day off, employers are held responsible (e.g. forfeiture of the S$5000 security bond).

Despite all employers of foreign domestic workers in Singapore being bound by the MOM legal regulations, employer management of foreign domestic workers varies by household. As shown in Fig. 1, employers can broadly be categorised into two groups: 1) employers who do not micromanage their workers and 2) those who do.

Fig. 1.

Different outcomes of MOM legal regulations.

4.1. Nonmicromanaging employers

Most employers have their ideal domestic worker, a worker who knows what to do and when to do it. In such cases, micromanagement is not practiced, and this is preferred by most employers. Most employers want their workers to know what needs to be done and to do it without employer directives. This reflects Macdonald's paranormal management style [25], where the employer expects the nanny to intuitively understand how they wish their child/children to be raised. Many employers in this study do not micromanage their domestic workers because they believe that their workers just know how to do things according to their preferences.4 A 38-year-old Chinese Singaporean, a beauty consultant, explained, “No, I never watch what they are doing as long as the housework is done when my kids get home, [and] whatever needs to be done is completed. It's fine with me.”

By forgoing micromanagement of their domestic workers, employers do not need to instruct or communicate with their workers. This is in line with employers preferring a business relationship to a personal one [24]. Employers explained that they can get the housework and childcare they need while maintaining a distant and impersonal relationship with their domestic employees by being in a business relationship. Employers do not want to have a personal relationship with their domestic workers because that would obligate them to care about their employees, which implicitly restricts their power to control them [23].

Although being in a business relationship may lead domestic workers to feel neglected and lonely, at the same time, not being micromanaged by their employer provides a significant amount of autonomy for a domestic worker. Domestic workers in nonmicromanaging households are allowed to plan their own workday and can decide what house chores need to be done on what day and at what time. Domestic workers in such households are often trusted by their employers to go to the market independently. For instance, a 58-year-old Chinese Singaporean human resources director, commented, “We have to trust [her] la. Otherwise, it's gonna be a very difficult relationship. So, I mean you give her the money, and these are the things you need to buy. She comes back, she's gonna give the balance and that's it.”

Forgoing micromanagement is conditional, however, and once an employer starts to believe that their worker is misbehaving, such as by abusing their rights and/or privileges and missing their curfew on their days off, they will exert more authority. Therefore, micromanagement is contingent upon the domestic worker's trustworthiness in the eyes of the employer.

4.2. Micromanaging employers

For employers who do micromanage their domestic workers, they often justify it in light of the government regulations.5 Some employers view it as their legal rights to micromanage their workers and explicitly choose to do so. Other employers believe that if they do not micromanage, their domestic workers will not get things done or will behave problematically, whether drinking, having relationships, or engaging in other off-limits activities. The reasoning for micromanaging one's domestic workers leads to different styles of micromanagement. Therefore, I classify micromanagement into three main types: micromanagement of a worker's daily routine, socialisation, and movement.

4.2.1. Daily routine

Since the mandatory weekly day off took effect on 1 January 2013, many employers have taken to micromanaging their domestic workers' daily routines to ensure that all the house chores are done. Because domestic workers have one day less per week to manage the household chores, many employers believe that micromanaging their domestic workers’ daily routine improves efficiency, believing that their workers are unable to plan and organise a cleaning routine themselves.

This explains why some employers decided to give a timetable specifying the job details for each hour. A 65-year-old Indian Singaporean employment agency clerk described her own experience in the following statement:

That’s the main thing, because when they come to our house, they don’t know what to do. They don’t know where to start… When they first come and start with me at my house, I’ll have a big timetable on the fridge. And I’ll say, ok, morning at this time, at this time you do this. At this time, at this time, you do this. And what time you have to cook, and what time you should rest.

The employer decision to create a timetable and specific schedule for work reflects what Macdonald [25] defined as puppeteer management. For comparison, the mothers in Macdonald's study [25] engaged in puppeteer management to produce a consistent childcare experience for their children, regardless of the nanny. The employers in this study act as puppeteers by controlling their workers' daily routine to take full advantage of their labour. As a Chinese Singaporean in her 50s explained,

I told her before she [started working] for me, I say, you cannot take a nap in the afternoon, no sleeping in the afternoon I told her… [but] the first few days she came over, she slept. I caught her sleeping, and I told her, no sleeping in the afternoon. Because afternoon nap is a habit. Once you have this habit, [you expect] to sleep every afternoon… it’s more than an hour.

Some employers simply micromanage their workers' routines due to hygiene reasons. As the media often portrays foreign workers as having poor hygiene and other negative traits, many employers adopt various measures to prevent migrant domestic workers from ‘contaminating’ the household [24,31]. A Chinese Malaysian in her mid-30s who works in a retail business stated the following:

… like what cloth you need la. Some are tablecloths, some are kitchen cloth, some are toilet (cloth) you know… because you know, for them, maybe their hometown, they stay in the province area… you know they don’t use different cloths aaah. One cloth to clean everything you know. You have to tell them… you have your own ways of keeping your things, you have to tell them. For things to be put in a proper way.

Employers have different reasons for micromanaging their domestic workers’ daily routines. For example, some employers micromanage to ensure that the housework is completed, whereas others micromanage to make certain that their house remains hygienic.

4.2.2. Social circle

Micromanaging domestic workers goes beyond controlling the worker's daily routine. Some employers believe they must act as parents and micromanage their workers socialisation, perceiving their workers as naïve and likely to behave inappropriately. These employers engage in ‘maternalism’ and appoint themselves as substitute mothers or guardians of their foreign domestic workers and consider it necessary to intervene in the workers' private lives [23,24,26,27]. This perspective is supported by the government holding employers accountable for their workers' actions. Employers are responsible for sending their domestic workers to a medical examination every six months. Domestic workers will then be screened for pregnancy and infectious diseases such as HIV, syphilis, and tuberculosis [32].

The practice of controlling with whom domestic workers socialise is not new, as employers have often feared that their domestic workers would go astray without proper guidance [33,34]. Some mothers in Macdonald's study [25] claimed to screen with whom their nannies socialise. In this study, employers commonly noted that their workers would bring their friends and boyfriends to be introduced and receive approval from the employer. This process is critical for employers who believe that by socialising with the wrong crowd their workers might be more inclined to misbehaviour. Stories of a neighbour's worker misbehaving (e.g. going to the park, drinking alcohol, and meeting up with male workers) can lead employers to be more vigilant in monitoring their own workers. Although most employers did not express much concern about who their workers befriended during their days off, employers did worry about male–female relationships. Some employers were very open to their domestic workers being in a relationship, but some employers strictly forbid any such relationship.

Employers who allow their domestic workers to have a relationship often cite humanitarian reasons; for instance, a 65-year-old Chinese Singaporean tourist company manager commented, “Because everybody are [sic] human beings. And the maid may have no one to talk to and sometimes have a guy that listens to her—that's why she has this relationship.”

Some employers explain that they would rather have their workers inform them openly of being in relationship, as they are more concerned if their workers are secretly dating a man and bringing him into their house without permission. By openly introducing a romantic partner, a worker allows the employer to screen the man and ensure that the man will not endanger family. A Singaporean Chinese tax advisor in her 30s shared her experience:

We actually invited him over, and, you know, and cook[ed] for him… well, Sophie cooked for him (laugh), and he was welcomed too… it didn’t happen often. But the boys knew him basically and they were comfortable with him. I didn’t want her to have a boyfriend and feel that we were against it or pervert it cuz then she would have hid it and might have tried to sneak him in when we weren’t around. Then I would feel uncomfortable.

Nevertheless, employers that allow their domestic workers to have a boyfriend prefer that their workers keep their private life outside the house, meaning not bringing a boyfriend home.

Most employers prefer and expect their domestic workers to remain single, as they believe that a relationship can distract domestic workers and affect their work quality. Some employers worry about safety, as they do not know the man's background, and some worry that their domestic workers may end up getting pregnant, which will lead to the loss of their S$5000 bond.

Many employers expressed disapproval of the government's mandatory day off, as they believe they cannot control their domestic workers' actions on this day but are still liable for the consequences of the worker's actions, being fined if the domestic worker gets pregnant, for instance.

Employers who are against their domestic workers being in a relationship tend to intervene and instruct that their worker end the relationship if they do not want to get deported. A 58-year-old Chinese Singaporean human resources director shared her experience of how she had one of her previous domestic workers deported because she had brought the boyfriend into the house without permission:

The previous one is umm… playful… she has her own mind—I mean, the story is umm … she brought someone home. Her boyfriend… She brought her boyfriend home into the house without us knowing. And that is taboo, that is not allowed. So because of that we send her back to Indonesia… Anyway, we call the police and they came and… they arrested the guy because it’s like a force[d] entry, you know, somebody enters your house without an invitation. So he went with the police. [As for the] maid, we bought her air ticket and we sent her back.

Employers tend to micromanage their domestic workers’ social circle to avoid adverse impacts on their own lives and well-being; thus, micromanaging gives employers a sense of security.

4.2.3. Movement

After the mandatory weekly day off for domestic workers took effect on 1 January 2013, it led to divided opinions amongst employers. Although all the research participants comply with the legal mandate and allow their domestic workers a day off each week, not all employers perceive it as logical. In fact, many employers believe that the day off conflicts with the government prohibitions on certain behaviours. Nevertheless, employers are forced to comply yet have no practical tools to prevent off-limits behaviour. The tension between liability for but inability to prevent prohibited conduct is expressed by a 35-year-old Chinese Singaporean sales executive. She clearly elucidates many employers’ concerns:

I feel that it’s safer that I keep (her passport) for her. [If] she runs away, if anything happens—she […] quarrels with friends or her boyfriend, she runs away, the government wants to fine me la… Everything I don’t understand la. Give them off day—off day gives them problem, but the government fine us! Why aaah? Don’t understand la. You see, you come Sunday, right? You see what happens or not. You know how they behave or not? Did you go to the behind and see the coffee shop? They drink Tiger beer… during the daytime. Hahaha, with the guys… they are 100% domestic maids; some people said they are not domestic maids, but you can tell. Then they wear G-string under the… the G-string is so high, and the jeans is so low. The underwear can see, and oh my god, flirting with the guy[s]. The government say give them off day… but what they do? You know. To be very not nice la, you see, you see, sometimes when you go to very dark places la… the staircase—you can see them hugging yeah, doing things yeah. Sometimes you walk past you can see so it’s quite obscene la. Give problems. So I’m very worried about off days. Because we work here, we can see every week.

Since the day off came into effect, many employers believe they have no choice but to monitor their workers' movement closely. As in Constable's study [35], employers use the potentially rampant sexuality of foreign workers to validate strict curfews and rules. It is not uncommon for employers to specify the time their domestic workers must be home by on their days off. In addition, some employers expect their domestic workers to inform them every time they leave the house:

Normally, we tell the maid if you need to go out, [tell us how] long, call us, and let us know… Cuz the house cannot be left without anybody to attend to it. And we also don’t want the maid to be running around (laugh). Outside you don’t know what they do. (58-year-old Chinese Singaporean, human resources director)

This is the same employer who let her domestic worker go to the market alone. While this employer tries not to micromanage her worker's movement, she believes it is her right to know where her maid is and how long her maid will be out for given that she is motivated by a desire to prevent immoral and illegal activities.

Some employers keep their domestic workers' passports. Although keeping a domestic worker's passport is illegal, many employers take it upon themselves to supervise their worker's mobility because the MOM will punish the employer by expropriating the S$5000 bond if the domestic worker cannot be located.

Several employers shared that their employment agency recommended that they forgo giving days off to domestic workers, especially for the first six months. Many employers see days off as a threat to their authority because their domestic workers will meet up with their migrant community, compare notes on employers, learn their rights, and start making demands and challenging the employer's authority. This is why many employers choose to be restrictive when it comes to their domestic workers going out. A Chinese Singaporean, in her 40s, opined, “Because initially, [I gave a worker a day off], then she came back and she went bonkers. She demanded that she is not going to wash the car. She's not going to do certain jobs, it's not [in] her job scope. So I realise one day off and it's very demanding.”

Some employers even come to a mutual understanding with their domestic workers and give their domestic workers an extra S$20 per day off to stay home and work. Employers do not view this as depriving or victimising their domestic workers. In fact, many view their micromanagement as a form of protecting their domestic worker's well-being. This is similar to what Foucault [36] calls ‘pastoral power.’6

Nevertheless, once a domestic worker has been with a household for a long time, some employers will stop micromanaging and even allow their workers freedom, treating them like a family member. A Chinese Singaporean in her 50s explained her cousin's situation of hiring a domestic worker:

This maid, she said, ok today I’m not cooking, I’m going out with my boyfriend. The maid can do that because the maid is with them for… [a] very long [time]… There’s one time, she’s not around for 4 days you know, then my daughter [ask] why? Oh, the maid go holiday [sic]. I say hah! (sound extremely surprise) Maid go holiday? Yeah. So nobody’s at home to cook. Yeah, and the maid had a boyfriend in Singapore. They know that she’s a maid, but sometimes she says she will go out—oh, I’m going out with the boyfriend, or sometimes she just go out whenever she wants la. She just go out. I can’t do that, no. It will not happen to me.

This scenario is not typical but is a rare case. Most employers do not prioritise their workers’ needs and demands over their risk of being fined by the government.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study assessed the status of foreign domestic workers in Singapore and how laws and regulations influence the behaviours of employers, specifically their micromanagement behaviour. This research fills a gap in the literature by showing that government regulations in Singapore, namely the security bond of S$5000 and the day-off regulation, unquestionably influence employers’ micromanagement behaviour. Many employers choose to micromanage their domestic workers, especially on their off days, because of concerns that if they do not do so their domestic workers may engage in illegal activities (e.g., working for another household and drinking in public), which can lead to forfeiture of the S$5000 security bond. Notably, however, despite the regulatory scheme for foreign domestic workers applying to all employers, not all employers exhibit the same micromanagement behaviours.

Although employers engage in various styles of micromanagement, most employers in this study tended to employ paranormal management [25], desiring their domestic workers to work under their own volition and without the need for their directive. However, many employers found that their workers require more structure and direction. Therefore, some employers attempt to maintain a distant/impersonal relationship and communicate with their workers only to get the housework and childcare they need. For the workers, this business relationship may lead to feeling secluded and neglected, although they have the autonomy to plan their own work schedule, socialise with who they want, and go where they want [24].

Many domestic workers would prefer a personalism-type relationship, but most employers avoid this when possible, as an informal relationship would obligate employers to care about their employees, thus restricting their power to control their employees [23].

Additionally, employers micromanage their domestic workers because they believe that doing so is their rights. Employers tend to engage in micromanagement of at least one aspect of their worker's life, whether their daily routine, social circle, or movement. Very few employers reported forgoing micromanagement altogether. Indeed, many employers engage in micromanagement of all three aspects of their worker's life, as they believe it is the most effective method to guarantee that their domestic worker complies with the laws and regulations of the Singaporean government.

Employers prefer modern approaches to discipline their domestic workers rather than overtly violent forms. Most employers in this study reported engaging in puppeteer management whereby they set out rules and timetables to regulate their workers’ daily routines in the interest of maximising their labour. In many cases, employers cite laws and regulations (e.g., cannot work for more than one household) as their motivation for micromanagement, desiring to ensure their workers remain in good legal standing.

The employer–worker relationship varies for each household and varies depending on circumstances. For example, in some scenarios, employers refer to their domestic workers as being part of the family. This characterisation allows them to discipline their workers as a mother or a guardian would a child, imposing a curfew on the worker's day off, for instance [23,24,26,27]. Thus, cultivating a maternalism relationship allows employers to softly intervene and influence/prohibit with whom their domestic workers socialise and ensure that those people do not threaten the safety and well-being of their own families. Nevertheless, in other scenarios, employers treat their worker more like an employee who can be reprimanded if the work contract is breached, reflecting a business-based relationship [24].

Interestingly, no employers in this study reported engaging in partnership management [25]. Although employers do communicate with their domestic workers, the decision-making regarding childcare and household chores typically takes the form of employers giving directives to the employees rather than a mutual agreement being forged between the two parties.

As this research has shown, state laws and regulations significantly influence employers' decisions regarding micromanaging their workers. Many employers strictly discipline their domestic workers to protect their S$5000 security bond. Therefore, for domestic workers to have more freedom, the Singaporean government might consider relaxing the regulations regarding the security bond. Domestic workers are well aware that engaging in illegal activities (e.g., drinking in public, having a sexual relationship that can result in pregnancy, or working for another household) can lead to their work permits being revoked. If the employers no longer viewed their security bond as being linked to the domestic workers' actions, then maybe employers would be more willing to let domestic workers live the lives they want on their days off without imposing restrictive curfews or subjecting their workers’ decisions to intense scrutiny. Amending the foreign worker regulations could lead to domestic workers being treated as a proper adult with dignity and respect rather than as a child in need of a guardian.

Author contribution statement

Krittiya Kantachote: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement section

This research was financially supported by the National Science Foundation (SES-1346750).

Data availability statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Ethics statement

The Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California approved this research (APP-21-04345).

Declaration of competing interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Appendix A. Characteristics of sample

Participant	Age	Sex	Race	Ethnicity	Job	Marital Status	Number of Children
1	30s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Tax advisor	Married	2
2	50s	Female	Asian	Chinese	International HR director	Married	0
3	50s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Business owner	Married	0
4	70s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Director of a company	Married	2
5	30s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Retail executive	Married	2
6	30s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Sales executive	Married	1
7	30s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Beauty consultant	Divorced	1
8	60s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Manager of a company	Married	1
9	30s	Male	Asian	Chinese	Director of a company	Single	0
10	30s	Male	Asian	Indian	Editor	Married	0
11	20s	Male	Asian	Chinese	Sales associate	Single	0
12	60s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Business owner	Married	3
13	40s	Female	Asian	Others	Writer	Married	1
14	20s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Shop manager	Married	3
15	30s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Lecturer/freelance writer	Married	1
16	60s	Female	Asian	Indian	Clerk	Married	3
17	60s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Business owner	Married	2
18	40s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Tuition	Married	2
19	40s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Tuition	Married	2
20	40s	Female	Caucasian	Others	Academic	Married	1
21	40s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Sales associate	Married	2
22	30s	Male	Asian	Chinese	Business owner	Married	0
23	80s	Female	Caucasian	Others	Academic	Widowed	2
24	60s	Male	Asian	Chinese	Business owner	Married	2
25	30s	Female	Asian	Others	Housewife	Married	2
26	30s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Housewife	Married	2
27	50s	Female	Caucasian	Others	Housewife	Married	3
28	40s	Female	Caucasian	Others	Housewife	Married	2
29	40s	Female	Asian	Chinese	Housewife	Married	2
30	30s	Female	Others	Others	Jewellery designer	Married	1

Note: To preserve participant confidentiality, age is given as a range rather than actual age and ethnicity is given as Others for Caucasian respondents.