SINGAPORE: An employer’s frustration was laid bare in a Facebook post that quickly drew attention: after spending about S$7,500 to bring a domestic helper to Singapore, the helper left after just four months.
The employer, who posted anonymously in the Maid, FDW in Singapore Facebook group, said the helper had informed her of plans to return home once her loan was paid off. She also declined the option of transferring to another household, explaining that she misses her 15-year-old son deeply and “regrets coming to Singapore.”
For the employer, the decision felt bewildering. “If she was so easily homesick, then why waste time and money coming here?” was her question, adding that she believed she had provided good working conditions.
The employer detailed what she saw as fair treatment: four meals a day, access to a phone and 24-hour Wi-Fi, and being included when the family dined out. There was no child to care for, and the helper was given a rest day, which she spent visiting the market and taking time for herself. “She has many friends here,” the employer added.
At the heart of the post lies a question that surfaces repeatedly in similar cases: when both sides believe they have done everything “right,” why does reality still fall so far short of expectations?
From the employer’s perspective, the arrangement appears reasonable, even generous. From the helper’s perspective, the emotional cost may have been underestimated. Migration decisions are often driven by financial pressure and family obligations, but living far from home can feel very different once the initial urgency fades.
The comments reflected this divide. One netizen urged patience, suggesting the helper may simply need more time to adjust. “Encourage her to talk to her friends and enjoy herself so that her mind can absorb some thoughts from them and feel the company. Maybe she feels bored here. You also need to give her freedom for now; later, when she’s okay, you can set limitations. For now, she needs time to adjust.”
Others took a more pragmatic view, advising the employer to inform the agency and move on. “You should still be eligible for a replacement since she’s only been here for 4 months,” one commenter wrote. Another added, “Within 6 months, your agency can provide a replacement or a refund. Let them know your helper’s plan so they can advise her.”
Behind these responses sits a system designed to manage risk and cost, but not necessarily emotional fallout. According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), employers may receive a 50% refund of service fees if a migrant domestic worker’s employment is terminated within the first six months. However, this is subject to several conditions. No refund is available if the agency only handled administrative tasks and did not provide matching services.
In the end, the dominant question lingers quietly beneath the debate: can a system built around efficiency and replacement ever fully account for the human cost of leaving home, or the emotional expectations placed on those who stay behind?
