Instagram<\/a>\u00a0on June 22 to share that a migrant domestic worker in Singapore was barred from using facilities in the very condominium where she lives and works.\u00a0<\/p>\n\u201cDid you know that Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) can be excluded from using communal facilities in the very condos they live in?\u201d the non-profit organisation wrote.<\/p>\n
HOME said that an employer had e-mailed them, recounting an incident where their domestic helper (known by the pseudonym Angie) was not allowed to use their condo’s gym.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIn April this year, Angie, a migrant domestic worker, was confronted in her condo\u2019s gym by a cleaner, who told her she was not allowed to use the facilities. The cleaner called down a member of the Management to confirm this, and they stood over her as she packed her things,\u201d shared Angie’s employer.\u00a0<\/p>\n
According to the account, Angie left \u201cshaken and upset\u201d, prompting her employer to look into the condo\u2019s by-laws.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It was then that Angie’s employer discovered the estate’s by-laws explicitly barred domestic workers from using its recreational facilities.<\/p>\n
One clause stated: \u201cOnly residents and their guests but not their employees may use the gymnasium\/fitness corner.\u201d<\/p>\n
In other words, while guests were allowed to use the facilities as long as they followed the rules and were accompanied by a resident, domestic workers were strictly prohibited from doing the same.<\/p>\n
Another line defined an occupier as the tenant and members of the occupier\u2019s family, but added that \u201cmember of the family\u201d does not include \u201cguests, servants, or agents of the occupier\u201d.<\/p>\n
In short, despite living in the condo, Angie is treated as an employee rather than part of the household under the estate\u2019s rules, leaving her barred from using the gym.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The employer described the incident as an example of \u201cintimidating conduct\u201d and the way it was handled was concerning, to say the least.\u00a0<\/p>\n
They added: \u201cAngie was shaken and distressed. I found this deeply troubling, both because of the existence of the rule and the manner in which it was enforced. I am bringing this to HOME\u2019s attention because I understand this reflects a broader pattern affecting domestic workers across Singapore\u2019s private estates.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to HOME, condominium policies vary across Singapore and are set by the estate owner. While some estates allow domestic workers to use facilities as residents, others only permit access under specific circumstances, such as when supervising children. Some, however, prohibit domestic workers from using the facilities altogether.<\/p>\n
\u201cA condo can set rules on overcrowding, safety, noise and cleanliness. But banning someone based on their work permit status or occupation is discriminatory,\u201d said HOME.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The situation has led HOME to share that such discriminatory cases are not isolated, with other reports of domestic workers being barred from using condo facilities such as swimming pools.<\/p>\n
While condominiums are self-governed through democratically passed by-laws, the orgnisation has called for change in cases like Angie\u2019s. They are urging residents to review their estate rules, support fair access for all who live in the property, and propose amendments at future meetings.<\/p>\n
The news left many netizens shocked, with some arguing that a live-in migrant domestic worker should, without question, also be considered a resident of the condo.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo it\u2019s okay to trust your child\u2019s caregiving with a helper, but not when it comes to condo facilities? How convenient,\u201d one commenter wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Others bluntly called it \u201cmodern slavery\u201d and \u201cappalling in this day and age\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
8days.sg<\/a> has reached out to HOME for more details on Angie\u2019s case, but has not received a reply as of press time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n