Unbelievable!!
-
a woman was fined 15k for pimping her maid.
she was caught after servicing 5 customers.
the woman collect $310 while the maid, $80. she said she did so to help the maid out of her finanical problems. -
She shd be jailed.
Yesterday's WanBao headlines mentioned something about HDB may confiscate her hdb flat due to her use for illegitimate purpose. Anyone can confirm? -
i think a fine is ridiculous too.
what is wrong with our judicial system? -
Originally posted by dragg:a woman was fined 15k for pimping her maid.
she was caught after servicing 5 customers.
the woman collect $310 while the maid, $80. she said she did so to help the maid out of her finanical problems.
Help the maid by pocketing $310, while the maid takes $80. This is pure exploitation -
pimping is bad enough. it gets more worst when the pimp is a she.
how can a woman treat another that way. she should know how bad it is. -
Should be jailed
And the cane if possible -
i wonder how is it like for a guy to pim another guyOriginally posted by dragg:pimping is bad enough. it gets more worst when the pimp is a she.
how can a woman treat another that way. she should know how bad it is.
wahhahahahaaa -
i wonder too.Originally posted by laurence82:i wonder how is it like for a guy to pim another guy
wahhahahahaaa
-
i hope her flat kena confiscated.Originally posted by Wanda:She shd be jailed.
Yesterday's WanBao headlines mentioned something about HDB may confiscate her hdb flat due to her use for illegitimate purpose. Anyone can confirm? -
---Originally posted by mach10:i hope her flat kena confiscated.
--- -
Don't say like that lah...she's got a husband and 2 children...anyway, with her looks, i think CMI.Originally posted by dragg:then someone will pimp her?
poetic justice? -
What the heck is wrong with people these days?
-
Originally posted by dragg:pimping is bad enough. it gets more worst when the pimp is a she.
how can a woman treat another that way. she should know how bad it is.
some people can do anything for money.
eeks! turning ur home into a brothel? this is very sick!
worse if there's kid at home. -
they probably did it when the kids are out at school.Originally posted by browniebaobao:
some people can do anything for money.
eeks! turning ur home into a brothel? this is very sick!
worse if there's kid at home.
nonetheless its still bad. -
it takes 2 hand to clap. what is right from wrong?
-
extracted from ST forums.
Jail more appropriate than a fine for employer who acted as pimp for maid
Your report on November 22 regarding the pimping of an Indonesian maid raises some disturbing questions.
The woman's surname 'The' is the colonial Dutch spelling for the Chinese surname 'Tay' and it is still used in Indonesia. Hence the woman (a permanent resident?) is likely to be an Indonesian Chinese or a descendant of an Indonesian Chinese who had emigrated to Singapore.
No normal mother would place her children, young or old, in the care of a maid whom she pimps for, given the danger of immorality and the serious risk of sexually transmitted diseases, especially Aids.
There is a profit motive in this case.
Was there a thorough investigation on the woman's background before her sentencing by the court? A custodial sentence would be more appropriate.
Dr Chan Kim Yong -
extracted from ST forums.
Maid prostitute case shows basic rights have to be enshrined in law
I suspect that readers who saw the report on the conviction of an employer for prostituting her domestic worker ('Fined $15,000 for pimping her maid', ST Nov 22) would have shaken their heads and thought 'What next?'
The case once again highlights the vulnerability of domestic workers who have the misfortune to work for unscrupulous employers.
The defendant lawyer's claim that the worker was 'a willing party ready to provide sexual services so that she could make extra income to repay her debt to her agent' should not go unchallenged.
Very few women who engage in prostitution do so by free choice. Many are physically coerced while others are driven by economic or social circumstances.
In this instance, it was reported that the worker in question was not physically coerced into prostitution but she may have felt that she had no choice but to cooperate with her employer.
The burden of a debt that typically takes three to five months for a domestic worker to pay off before she can start sending money home to her family weighs heavily on her mind.
She feels under pressure not only to send money as soon as she can but also to avoid any problems with her employer that might result in her being sent back home or returned to her agency. This would have extended her indebtedness.
Many workers in this situation are unwilling to express their true opinions if they want to go against their employers or reject their proposals. The choices they make are not free.
These include the choices they make when they seek work and are told that they will not be employed unless they agree to having no days off or doing almost anything required by an employer.
A second issue that arises from this case is the role of the employment agency that provided the worker to the employer. It was reported that the police acted after it lodged a complaint about what was going on.
It did the right thing and that is commendable. It kept the agency on the right side of the law.
Section 23(d) of the Employment Agencies Act states that an agency licensed under the Act that 'knowingly sends, directs or takes any girl or woman to any place for immoral purposes or to a place where she is likely to be morally corrupted, shall be guilty of an offence.'
Section 24 - (2) stipulates the penalties to which an offending agency can be subject: 'A licensee or any person who is guilty of an offence under section 23 (d) shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.'
In this instance, the agency could legitimately argue that it did not knowingly send a woman into prostitution, but it must certainly be the case that once it became aware of her position, it could have jeopardised its own status if it had not taken the responsibility to inform the police.
This underlines a point that TWC2 (Transcient Workers Count Too) has been arguing for some time: basic rights and protection for domestic workers need to be ensured under the law.
Among these, we have consistently urged for their right to have a day off each week and a limit on the length of the working day. An avenue must also be provided for a domestic worker who feels wronged to seek help and advice.
We have heard the arguments that this is best left to market forces and that many protective measures for domestic workers are not practical because the abuses take place in the privacy of people's homes.
In this case, the legal provisions existed to prevent a form of abuse and they may well have played a key part in stopping it even though it occurred within the employer's home.
It may be hard to enforce some provisions but their very existence help to dispose those who have responsibilities under them to see that they are implemented.
John Gee
Vice President
Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2)