Surrendering Your Cards in the Patriarchy Game

The Women’s March on January 21 followed defiantly after Trump’s inauguration. What began as a nationwide grassroots movement for women’s rights grew into an international protest for a hodgepodge of liberal/leftist values; people paraded signs to call an end to police brutality, to champion equal rights for racial minorities, and to recognise the urgency of using sustainable energy sources. It was called the Women’s March and the name suggests a pretty straightforward fight for gender equality, but as usual, things got kinda messy because they involved diverse collectives of people. A woman wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat was reportedly kicked out of the protest. The Women’s March clearly happened on Democrat terrain, and was hostile towards the participation of Conservative-leaning women. (I think the bipartisan system in America has the tendency to polarise people and create pools for extremism on either end, but that’s a story for another day.)

According to the exit polls from the presidential election, 53% of all white women who voted placed their vote for Donald Trump. This lays in stark contrast with the 94% of black women who voted for Hillary Clinton. That’s nearly all of them.

Here’s a photograph from the Women’s March that illustrates that perfectly.

636209669899784796-image1-1

In the picture, Angela Peoples is holding the sign “Don’t forget: White Women Voted for Trump” and nonchalantly sucking on a lollipop. Behind her, almost as if composed and spray-painted by Banksy, stand three oblivious white women. Conveniently enough one of them looks like she’s taking a selfie, and we all know that’s the gestural cue for solipsism, don’t we. Also, it really doesn’t help that, taken out of context, the pink pussy hats make them look like ridiculous caricatures. Feminism is messy. Women disagree amongst themselves about what feminism should do, and some outrightly reject feminism.

Feminism is defined as the movement for the social, economic and political equality of the sexes, and the women at the Women’s march were protesting for different types of feminisms. After all, equality is not something you can qualify on certain terms. Does equality mean we are treated identically? Does it mean we earn the same amount of money? What about equal happiness, and how do we measure that?

And what is this blog post about exactly?

It’s about why feminism is contentious even amongst the supposed beneficiaries of the movement (women). If we’re all individuals with unique vantage points within a complex hierarchy and we’re all acting in self-interest to a significant extent, then life is like a card game where the stakes are high. We don’t want to play the most obvious hand, we don’t want to show anyone what we’ve been dealt, and some of us play beneath the table.

Let’s take another look at the definition for feminism:

Feminism is defined as the movement for the social, economic and political equality of the sexes.

Because feminism is a movement, it is inherently political. Maybe it shouldn’t be politicised because that rubs people the wrong way, but it already has been, because it’s an outward declaration of resistance, an active step in a defiant direction. When you support and subscribe to the values of feminism, it necessitates that you lay down your cards and surrender your weapons in the power play of social hierarchy. You have to bring everyone’s attention to the rules of the game, you have to admit that you’re losing and could be easily finished, or sometimes, you’re winning and you have to admit that you cheated.

Because I’m an erudite individual and I go to a fancy schmancy liberal arts college, this is the opportune moment for me to quote from a revered film classic. You know that film Django Unchained? Leonardo DiCaprio played the racist slave-owner who made his captives fight each other to their violent deaths. In reference to the slaves he controlled, DiCaprio was like “Why don’t they kill us?” He’s been owning slaves for decades and the slaves never acted against their cruel masters. If they really wanted to kill him one of them could just slit DiCaprio’s throat with a razor while shaving him. DiCaprio explained this all away with white supremacist ideas about the anatomy of the human brain, but the real answer is that sometimes, a movement that may benefit a collective of people may severely disadvantage an individual. If one brave slave slits the throat of his owner, it’s not enough to overturn the whole system of slavery. This one slave would probably be beaten to death as punishment, his story will be remembered as one of insolence from a lesser breed of human, and the American landscape remains largely unchanged.

Ok back to feminism. How exactly would outwardly supporting feminism disadvantage a woman? What does it look like when you surrender your cards?

Here are a few specific examples:

  1. You have to admit that you don’t look attractive naturally and you need a whole arsenal of beauty products to look beautiful. Nope, women aren’t beautiful creatures, we’re not mysterious seductresses. There’s no “something” about women. It’s all been a masquerade (read: “Film and the Masquerade” by Mary Ann Doane), and one to the tune of a 95-billion-dollar cosmetics industry. We’re not pristine princesses; sometimes we get explosive diarrhoea from cheap barbecues, sometimes we pick out our wedgies when no one’s looking, we get in-grown hairs on our armpits and we get yeast infections. When we shed our chicken cutlets, our spanx, our eyelash extensions and our Benefit Porefessional Primer, what’s left? If you’ve been depending on your looks to get you what you want, then what will happen to you once the secret’s out?
  2. You have to admit that you’ve been smart all along, but you’ve elected not to use your brain. You’ve been silently observing everyone and taking in information, and you’re a legitimate threat to the people around you. If you’ve settled with a wealthy husband, people will grow suspicious of you. You’ll look like a gold-digger, and in comparison to the other women who toughed it out in their careers, you’ll look lazy and unimportant. You’ve been intelligent all along, but you chose to do nothing with your smarts. This is a long-standing argument against the sort of values that emerged during Second Wave feminism. To many, it really doesn’t seem like feminism liberates women because women no longer feel like they can choose domestic work without judgment.
  3. If you’re middle-aged and married, it would be terrifying to look back on your life and realise that it’s been a series of unreciprocated sacrifices. Your brothers went to school but you didn’t, you settled down with the first man who could conjure a diamond ring, and you spent the rest of your life being someone’s wife and someone’s mother, never your own person. You put food out on the table and someone says it’s too salty, and after dinner, you clear the table alone. You’re already 50, what are you going to do now? Is it too late?
  4. Ladies get let into clubs for free because we’re not the customers, we’re the product. Men go to clubs for the holy trinity: booze, good music and sexy women. How are you going to rationalise your decisions to yourself now that you’ve found out? How many drinks will you let guys buy you, how many kisses are they going to steal, before you feel like you’ve betrayed yourself?
  5. And finally, my personal favourite: when you show your feminist streak, you’ll be a public loser. You’re admitting that you don’t like the way you’ve been treated, you’re a victim, and you’re broadcasting your insecurities. You don’t like your body, you are deathly afraid of ageing, you didn’t do anything when a man groped you on the bus. These things are deeply personal, and we don’t even want to speak about these things in regular conversations, let alone on blazing banners.

When you’re a feminist, you’re unattractive. You’re whiny and loud and your appearance is mere artifice. The patriarchal rules that bind women in an unspoken oath to their attractiveness, are the same rules that are broken when one identifies as a feminist.

Sexism is not absolute. It’s not a simple polarity, it’s not a lopsided black-and-white ying-yang. It’s a tangly mess of social conventions and restrictions that we learn to navigate from a  young age. Women have learnt to keep their mouths shut and to sit pretty. We check our partners’ phones when they’re not looking, we let the men get drunk first, we go to the toilet to adjust our bras and clean up our eyeliner. Some women are getting ahead in the game, and I understand why they don’t want to quit.

If you’re waiting for the paragraph where I steer the debate in a different direction and convince you all to be feminists anyway, it’s not going to happen. Don’t be mistaken, I still think that feminism is important and I’m going to fight very hard for it, but I also understand why so many women are intimidated. This a blog post for them, and a post for everyone else to understand why this issue is so complex. When it comes down to it, it really is a man’s world out there, and the sane and smart thing for women to do is to stay out of the fight but reap its benefits afterwards.

What do we do now? 

I don’t know, I don’t have all the answers. And to be very honest, it’s been very tempting to give up. Speaking so openly about social issues has earned me a reputation for being “so angry” or “agitated” all the time. It’s a paradox isn’t it? It’s smart to keep silent, but we can’t all be silent either, then no change will every happen. I guess I’ll just keep writing.

 

A Singaporean Feminist’s Opinion on NS

19337609Photo unapologetically take from TODAY.

Feminist writer Natalie Tan gives her 2 cents on national conscription and on its social implications, in the process reaping frustrations which were sown since the regiment’s implementation, and annoying everyone with the deliberate overuse of the word “feminist”.

So how’d you like the title? Was gunning for the most aggravating/abrasive title possible. Other candidates included:

  1. Chinese Singaporeans and NS
  2. Young Asian Female Looking for Trouble, click to find out more
  3. Should girls be enlisted in the Singaporean army?
  4. Amos Yee Opens Up About NS: The Interview

I also learnt to change my opening lines so that they show up in the link description on Facebook shares and provide a nice summary. Hopefully that does the trick to draw more eyeballs, because otherwise my opening lines have always been non-social media friendly.

Ok your time as an internet reader is valuable. Now that you’re here, are you ready for what I’m about to say? Are you really ready?

Ok here goes.

.

.

.

.

.

I empathise.

No really I do. I decided to write this because I came across the non-news that some Singaporean girl posted a video berating men who complain about NS, and she even compared their physical exertion to that of illegal immigrants. I didn’t watch the video because I didn’t quite feel like spending my data charges on this crap, but it did remind me that I have a lot of thoughts on the topic, and I don’t think there’s a lot going around the internet on the topic from the point of view of anyone in a similar social position to me. In fact, my intuition tells me that people skirt the topic because it’s so difficult to write about it without stepping on anyone’s steel-toed combat boots.

Ok, so I’ve organised the rest of this article to address central, pressing questions. They’re not really classy academic questions, but these are the ones that consistently pop up on discussion forums and are usually met with some Jack_Boi87 comment like “idk lah sua :/”. Not very informative.

Ok first question. Why do you empathise?

I understand why Singapore needs a military defence force. It doesn’t just function on a practical level in the event of war, but it’s also symbolic and a semiotic requirement for any entity claiming to be a sovereign nation. It’s part of the impression. A country will only seem legitimate if it has a government, its own currency and an army. I, however, acknowledge the artificiality of nationhood. Nations are relatively new and their conception coincided with the invention of the novel. Yesteryear’s ideas of colonial empires seep into our present understanding of what it’s like to be a strong polity.

That being said, I think it’s unfortunate and symptomatic of larger social problems that we prioritise the preservation of a nation over the lives of individuals. People with their own lives and concerns and ambitions are reduced to a mere statistic in news reports and budget proposals. The bodies of young men have been objectified and are assessed based on their utility. The army functions like a well-oiled fighting machine and each soldier constitutes a tiny cog. Here I’m going to echo a bit of Foucault (bear with me): the state apparatus depends on the docility-utility of bodies.

A lot of movies and novels make the idea of fighting seem more palatable and even honourable because sacrifice is something that is compatible with the male ego. If you spend a lifetime hearing warmongering messages about how men should prove their worth by showing that they can fight, and then you live in a social environment where it’s difficult to show vulnerability to your male peers, then of course you’re going to need some sort of outlet to earn some dignity. A boy becomes a man when he blows up trying to evacuate his team. After that he is very much a Real Man when his body is encased in mahogany with a flag draped over it. The reality of war is very different though. I reckon most soldiers die very anti-climactic deaths (they forgot something, the weather conditions weren’t favourable, they starved in the cold, they fell sick from bacteria in rivers, they spend 1 month travelling and then die after 10 seconds of gunfire etc). And when you’re on the field, your humanity still exists in you. Of course it’s beneficial for the army as a whole for soldiers to march fearless into battle, but are they really fearless? Will you be if you were activated in war?

These things were more apparent when the British colonisers imposed conscription on Singaporean youths in 1954. Protests broke out because Chinese high school students did not want to serve a state that they did not identify with, and their petition was met with violent action from the colonial government. After the dissolution of colonial rule, military conscription could be rationalised along nationalistic lines, and that’s where all the Singapore is a small country, if not me then who, if not now then when rhetoric comes in.

I know another grievance is that men feel like they have lost 2 years of their lives and they’re not competing well career-wise. I have the suspicion that this is exacerbated by the fact that women are 2 years ahead. It doesn’t sit well with a lot of men to have women as their seniors, especially if they’re younger. That perception is itself a problem, and to be quite frank I don’t think this is a real issue that will stretch well into your adult life, because 1) statistically, women tend to be in different industries anyway, and 2) the camaraderie built from the shared experience of NS will help you in male-dominated industries. Real deals are struck on the golf course, not in the office. Admittedly, it’s different when you’re looking to work overseas. I think it becomes an issue then, because people won’t have the knowledge that you’re 2 years behind because of compulsory military service. I can’t really comment on this aspect because I’ve never spoken to anyone old enough to form an informed opinion on the long term effects of NS on an overseas career.

What do you think of guys who chao geng?

Full on empathy because if I were a guy and I did NS I would definitely chao geng too lol (but then again maybe if I were a guy I would be more encouraged to play sports, then I would be fitter and it won’t be so daunting, idk). Some men will flourish in the army, and some men won’t. I don’t want to discredit those who do well in the army because it does take backbreaking work to get far. It’s not something people are just born with. What I’m saying is that so many men are uninterested, and some are even scared away from “manly” activities because “manly” men have been mean to them in school. I personally know many boys like that because they tend to gravitate towards female friends (we’re less intimidating and know not to make fun of them). They are more interested in things like drawing, gardening, knitting, childcare, writing etc, and some of them are really excellent in those areas. I can see why they would be lazy in the army. If I didn’t care about something then I wouldn’t do it. Simple.

I guess the controversy arises because Singaporeans see NS as a responsibility, a duty. If you are lazy then you’re just shirking your due responsibility and jeopardising national security. And on top of all this, it’s a test to prove that you’re a good man, and no accolades in fashion design or nature photography will ever bring you the same adulation. I think it’s hideous that we think that way, and in an ironic roundabout way, it might even promote belligerent behaviour and make living less safe for everyone. When people see the term “gender role”, they think about women and house chores, but serving in NS is also a gender role, one imposed on men.

I want to clarify that I think it’s a great thing that some men are so dedicated to serving and that they’ve defied so many odds to rise up through the ranks, but I also think it’s fine if men don’t do that, and that they contribute to society by excelling in other areas.

Do you think girls should serve NS?

I don’t know how to answer this question because my real answer is that, ideally, I don’t want anybody in the world to be in the military. No soldiers at all. But obviously that’s not going to happen, so I will try to answer again with that grim fact in mind. Let’s work this out together.

Hmm. Yes, but a transition towards that will have to carefully address and manage social differences so that it benefits our country and doesn’t damage other sectors of living. For example, I know a lot of girls want to get a university degree and be married first before having their first child, and considering that the risks of pregnancy increase after 30, we would like to have all this done before then. Two years of NS will zap so much time from that little window. Maybe NS can be introduced later, once the woman has already given birth? But then she’ll be more sluggish then right? Then again not all women want to have children, but it’s very difficult to make a definite decision about all this when you’re only 18 and you haven’t even met your first boyfriend. It’s also not very conducive to assume that women would give birth because if they don’t then they’ll be treated like selfish spinsters. I really don’t know. Maybe there can be a half-serve half-study scheme for everyone? But that won’t be vigorous enough right, how can anyone be operationally ready like that?

I guess social expectations of what a woman should be like will also have to change before girls are enlisted. I’m sure boys would be happier knowing that girls are enlisted and that seems more fair, but after they ORD, are they going to accept the tanned and muscular women in their social circles? Are men going to respect that a woman will have as much knowledge and experience in the army (assuming that in this hypothetical universe, we do indeed do exactly the same things)?

Maybe women can serve as nurses. That is compatible with current sexist standards of what women should do and how they should behave – caring, nurturing, attending to the needs of other people before themselves, domestic, docile. It’s useful anyway to have a large proportion of the Singaporean population trained in first aid. But if we go along these lines then it sort of defeats the purpose of enlisting girls for fairness’ sake, because serving as a nurse is not as physically demanding and they don’t have to put their lives on the line in the event of a war. I really have no idea how all this can work out.

Before we move on to the next question, it’s really important to point out that I think many women are more capable/suited than men to serve in NS. I had this friend who was the head of the St. John’s Ambulance Brigade and she was 1) very fit, more so than a lot of boys, 2) was always in leadership positions in sports, 3) very smart, one of the top students, 4) in admiration of military positions. I always thought she would have made an excellent soldier. I had another friend who was super interested in military planes and she knew all about them. She also had a really hardy personality. She also would have made a good soldier. I think we’re missing out on a lot when we gloss over people like them by virtue of their gender.

Are Singaporean girls pampered?

No, not anymore than your average developed country citizen. Singapore is a very wealthy nation, and the middle class here are expected to be able to afford treats like matcha tiramisus and S.E.A. Aquarium tickets. I think Singapore is a pretty pampered country in general, and the government is exceptionally paternalistic.

The answer changes if you switch the yardstick for measuring someone’s level of “pamperedness”. If you’re assessing a girl based on sexist ideas of what a girl should be like, then the millennial Singaporean girl would fall short on a lot. Here are a list of things that we are supposed to do:

  1. Cook and/or bake.
  2. Do all the house chores.
  3. Like and take care of children.
  4. Be loyal and faithful at the side of a boyfriend/husband who is a “man in the making” i.e. he has no money.
  5. Stay slim.
  6. Somehow look very pretty but don’t ask anyone for money to buy makeup and look pretty.
  7. Don’t talk so much, even if you obviously know more about something.
  8. Give birth.
  9. Be attracted to men who are not physically attractive/don’t have good grades/don’t have a job/have the courage to ask us out, because otherwise we’ll be shallow.
  10. Be attracted to Singaporean men otherwise we’re race traitors.
  11. Not go out so much, especially at night.
  12. Study hard and do well in school but then don’t do anything with your degree beyond a regular office job.
  13. Not hold any leadership positions, especially above men.
  14. Be virginal, the best case scenario being that you’ve never dated before.

Tell me, would you be able to obey ALL these rules? It’s difficult, and for a lot of us, it’s not even in our interest, so why would we? I guess if you hold these standards, Singaporean girls will be mighty pampered to you, but the news I have for you is that so are all other women in developed countries, and it’s not going to change your dating prospects, which we all know is the main point of the question. If you choose to stick by these standards, I suggest you work on your own personality, not because it will guarantee you a date, but because in general I think your personality needs work. You’re not entitled to a cooking and cleaning machine because you served NS.

Ok that’s about all I have for today, hope this was useful and interesting in one way or another.

The Invisible People of Singapore: Racism Yet Again

It’s been quite a while since my last post on racism got passed around on Facebook. I wish I could say that my post made a huge difference in the world and we can all lock elbows and sing the kumbaya around the Merlion but who would have guessed, my one ramble didn’t dissolve structural racism. Who knew.

This week a Nancy Goh-esque figure tattled to the Straits Times in response to the new Indonesian policy on domestic workers. (Another Straits Times piece summarising the policy changes can be found here.) The changes are part of Indonesian president Joko Widodo’s effort to regulate and “professionalise” informal employment.


(This is Nancy Goh btw.)

Here are some of the changes:

  • Domestic workers should live separately from their employers in dormitories, and not in the employers’ homes.
  • They should work regular hours and be compensated for overtime work.
  • They should get rest days and public holidays off.

At this point you must be wondering

Hey I thought this was going to be about racism! Why suddenly talk about maid

Well, my friend, maids also happen to be humans, and they make up a significant proportion of the people currently living in Singapore, along with the men who literally lay the bricks for the foundation of our country. They don’t show up on surveys because we apparently don’t care enough to ask their opinion on anything. We impersonate them in comedy skits but we never hear their actual voices. Maids spend a large portion of their lives here, they raise your children, they cook the meals you come home to, they know the Singaporean neighbourhoods, they have favourite shirts and colours, they crack jokes and have hobbies and interests and friends and dreams and a personality. They’re people, and that should be reason enough for anybody to care. What I am incensed about, is that this statement will genuinely come as a surprise to many Singaporean employers.

Here is the Nancy Goh (real name Francis Cheng but I’m going to call this person Nancy Goh nonetheless) response:

“The Ministry of Manpower must consider the implications on employers of foreign domestic workers if Indonesia’s plan to introduce live-out maids becomes law (“Indonesia plans to stop sending new live-in maids abroad“; Wednesday, and “Live-out maids ‘will lead to more costs, issues’“; yesterday).

If maids live separately from their employers and work regular hours, with rest on public holidays and days off, and also get overtime entitlement, they should be covered under the Employment Act.

Employers should not be obliged to pay a security bond or sign a safety agreement because they won’t know and cannot control what the maids do when they leave the house after working hours.

The same argument holds for the purchase of medical and personal accident insurance, and the sending of maids for regular medical checks.

Would the monthly levy still apply and would employers have to bear the cost of sending the maid home?

If maids live elsewhere, the link between employers and maids is broken, without obligation.

If the maid works part time illegally elsewhere or compromises her safety and health after working hours, employers should not be penalised.

We must remember that live-in maids are required to not just take care of various household chores but also take care of children and the old and ailing. They are needed in case of emergencies.

A live-out maid will not serve the same purpose and may become a burden to employers with her other activities.

I have highlighted the parts I have a problem with. The letter started out by voicing reasonable concerns because it seems as if Nancy Goh wants to iron out some kinks in the local employment policies, such that they line up with Indonesia’s prerogative to regulate domestic work. But somewhere in the middle I got really uncomfortable and the ending sentence confirms my suspicions that this Nancy Goh person is whiny and just can’t stand a life without a servant at his/her beck and call. This doesn’t sound like a “since Indonesia is doing this let’s follow through to streamline our employment act” letter but more like a “boohoo where is my kitchen slave waahhh”.

 

In the first place, the usual working conditions are already unjust and maids are treated like they are subhuman.

Here’s a scenario: Let’s say a Singaporean Chinese girl called Hui Min is taking a gap year before she goes to uni. She wants to be a domestic worker for a year to earn money for her university fees. How would you treat this girl? Would you be angry if she went out on the weekends? What if she had access to her own passport and private smartphone? What if you saw her dating someone on her time off? Would you get all riled up and demand you get your money’s worth? NO RIGHT?

Because what she does in her personal life is her own daiji. If she gets pregnant and quits her job then it sucks for you because you expected her to work a full year, but even then you wouldn’t take it upon yourself to police what she does in her free time with her own body. It’s just not your place as an employer. It’s common sense, it’s keeping out of someone’s private business. It’s one of those things where it sucks to be you, the employer, but very clearly you still shouldn’t do anything preposterous or feel entitled to control your employee. Imagine if your own boss got angry at you for having a significant other. “Dammit, you have a fiancé?! Now how are you going to do your excel sheets! I’m paying you good money for this! I will send you back to Serangoon!”

Working conditions were bad to begin with, and Indonesia is now rectifying the problem. It’s not like they had decent arrangements and now Joko Widodo wants to provide every maid with a lounge chair and a servant to fan them with peacock feathers. It’s that they were treated like cattle, and now they will be treated like regular workers.

 

We don’t care about domestic workers or Bangladeshi construction workers because they’re not “Singaporean”.

They’re not only seen as outsiders, but they’re always seen as lowly maids and “bangalahs” and nothing else. In our minds they don’t exist outside of mopping floors and carrying planks. They could be laying in the grass enjoying an al fresco meal but we’ll see them as unruly sexual predators who are a danger to every (Singaporean, mostly Chinese) woman in the vicinity. They could be having a day out with their friends at the mall but we see a stretch of cheap maids and loose women outside Lucky Plaza. It’s the “bangalahs” doing their “bangalah” things and the maids doing their maid things. Everything they do is somehow lower, somehow a bigger disruption in our sterile streets. They do literal back-breaking work and this is the thanks they get? They get shooed out of stores and glared at in public, that is, if they’re lucky enough for their employers to let them have weekends off. (Apparently some poetic geniuses interpret the Sunday rest day rule as letting their maid stay at home without doing strenuous chores.)

No, I don’t think they are any more unruly than we are, and I don’t think our xenophobia is justified. Our country seems to have the propensity of creating parang-wielding ah bengs, and there’s probably one terrorizing your neighbourhood basketball court right now. Also, just recently some crazy Japanese dude slapped three police officers, but we don’t think of Japanese people as hooligans. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be vigilant citizens or whatever, only that now it seems like migrant workers are guilty until proven innocent. We already think lowly of them, even if they’re just sitting in the grass.

 

You can’t treat other people like shit even if you are disadvantaged.

Even if you get the short end of a stick in a deal and your expectations can no longer be met, you cannot compromise on treating someone decently. If I pay a handphone shop ah beng to change my handphone screen protector and he does a shoddy job, I can complain to my friends, and never return to the shop ever again. What I cannot do is hit him on the head until he replaces it again. Ok that’s a bad analogy.

Ok how about if someone is a private tutor, and in a world tailored for you and your son, you would like the tutor to be at your house 24/7 to answer questions. It’s inconvenient for you to not have access to his services around the clock, because your son does homework throughout the day and he might have a lot of questions. But so? If the service is unavailable, it’s unavailable. Don’t exploit people just because it will disadvantage you otherwise. It’ll be good if doctors could stay in your house to care for the elderly in your home, but if you can’t afford this service, and you can’t provide the doctor with comfortable living conditions, then you are not entitled to this treatment. The doctor has his own family or personal interests, he would like time away from work. It’s the same with other people, like domestic workers.

 

“The rich can exploit the poor, because beggars can’t be choosers.”

You might not think yourself particularly wealthy. But if you’re middle-income in Singapore, you’re pretty much a rich ass in most parts of the world. You own a computer, you’re educated, you sleep on a bed at night and you have clean running water. The way society runs in Singapore, is that we get to keep our lifestyles going because we have poorer people from other countries to do the dirty work. The reason why there’s probably no real life Hui Min to do domestic work, is because no Singaporean in their right mind would go into this knowing the conditions. It’s just not worth the money. But for some people, they really need the cash, and we milk as much out of them as possible by seeing how low they can go, and how far they can bend over. If you think you can make people do whatever you want just because you have the money they desperately need, then you’re a bully.

Wake up, and stop treating your maids like they’re your property.