‘Is Singapore like Dubai when it comes to the rights of domestic helpers?’ — Netizen asks because ‘Many say Dubai has an alleged “slave” system’

SINGAPORE: A netizen’s blunt comparison on Reddit sparked a familiar yet uncomfortable debate: Is Singapore’s foreign domestic helpers/workers (FDW) system comparable to Dubai’s, which is often criticised internationally for what some describe as an alleged “slave” system?

The question, posted on the r/askSingapore subreddit, did not hold back words. The netizen wrote that “many people are saying the system of domestic helpers in Singapore is not acceptable in other developed countries,” adding that “people say Singapore is like Dubai.” According to the post, Singapore’s “better PR than Dubai” has shielded it from deeper scrutiny, despite claims of “forced pregnant test, low salary, and employers’ approval when it comes to dating.”

The big question was direct: “Do you think Singapore can sustain this system? Can Singapore get away from the international criticism?” What followed was a long thread pushing back hard against such comparisons.

“No one is forced to come or forced to stay…”

Several Singaporeans rejected the idea that Singapore’s system resembles Dubai’s in any meaningful way.

One Singaporean said, “Singapore doesn’t really have a slave system like Dubai.” He pointed to what he described as key differences, noting that “many of the workers in Dubai have very dubious contracts and many of them are under contracts that prevent them from leaving.”

By contrast, he stressed that “domestic helpers here can leave whenever they want to. If they feel the treatment they received here is not as good, they are free to leave, and three more would take their place. No one is forced to come or forced to stay.”

Another commenter went further, calling the comparison ill-informed: “Singapore is considerably better than many other Middle Eastern nations where literal human trafficking of domestic helpers actually occurs (yes, straight up slavery where they are property of their employers).”

To underline the point, the Singaporean shared a link to an Amnesty International report on Saudi Arabia, writing: “To even try to equivocate between Singapore and these Middle Eastern nations shows you know absolutely nothing about the matter either.”

“The low salary is due to market forces…”

Salary was another flashpoint. The netizen criticised the “low salary” given to domestic helpers in Singapore, but several commenters framed wages through a cross-border lens.

One Singaporean argued that “the low salary is due to market forces, and the government will not waste resources to correct it.” While conceding that pay is “low relative to us,” he added that “it is very high to them.” He also shared a personal anecdote: “My ex-helper built her own house with her salary over the years, and if I recall correctly, she even started a shop back home.”

Another Singaporean echoed this, saying, “Thirdly, wages are not ‘low.’ My helper tells me she gets more than an engineer and a public servant back at her home.” He added that he personally increases her pay “by 20% every 2 years,” questioning “how much more you want them to be paid when they stay in your house and eat your food.”

“Do you want a pregnant helper doing house chores for you?”

Among the most sensitive issues raised was the claim of “forced pregnancy test” and employer control over dating.

One Singaporean responded, “‘Forced pregnancy test’ — Do you want a pregnant helper doing house chores for you?” While acknowledging that “more can be done to further transient workers’ welfare,” he added that “generally Singaporeans (except a minority few) are pretty hospitable.”

On dating, another commenter pushed back against the idea that employers control helpers’ relationships. “Employers cannot control if or who they date,” he wrote. “It only becomes an issue when they bring their boyfriends into the house. Which again is understandable.”

A longer comment framed these rules as risk management rather than moral policing: “Will you feel safe if your own helper is dating secretly and will potentially bring unknown men into your house, especially when you have a young daughter? Known to happen before. Will you bear the cost of her pregnancy?”

To this Singaporean, these were “common sense” considerations rather than exploitation.

“Employers who harm helpers or fail to pay them get punished by the law…”

Several commenters highlighted legal protections that, in their view, set Singapore apart.

“Employers who harm helpers or fail to pay them get punished by the law,” one Singaporean said. He also claimed that “it is EXTREMELY easy for a helper to jump from one employer to the next, and many use this as leverage to get more benefits.”

This mobility, they argued, contradicts the notion of a coercive system where workers are trapped.

Another commenter summed it up as a transaction driven by mutual benefit: “These helpers are here because it is the best available option for them. These helpers are hired here because it is the best available option for households. Given a better opportunity, these helpers will move on.”

“No, we don’t have a slave system when it comes to FDWs…”

The original question from the netizen, whether Singapore could “get away from the international criticism,” appeared not to be a concern for some commenters.

“Firstly, don’t say Singapore is like Dubai, and international criticism is the last thing we need to worry about,” one Singaporean wrote. He argued that Western media portrays Singapore harshly, saying, “We live in a dictatorship, we have no civil rights, and our success should be undermined.”

“Secondly, no, we don’t have a slave system when it comes to FDWs,” he added, and as mentioned earlier, “Employers who harm helpers or fail to pay them get punished by the law.”

From this perspective, criticism of the FDW system seems to be just another external judgment unlikely to shift domestic policy.

A system under scrutiny, but not equated

What emerges from the thread is not denial that the system has flaws but resistance to what many see as a false equivalence, as even those defending the system conceded that “more can be done to further transient workers’ welfare.”

However, the dominant view was that comparing Singapore to Dubai, particularly countries where alleged “straight up slavery” and trafficking are documented, collapses important distinctions.

The debate reflects a broader tension: balancing household needs, worker welfare, and international norms, while operating within a system built on economic disparities.

Whether Singapore’s FDW system will evolve further remains open, but for now, among these Singaporeans, the clear consensus was that, whatever its shortcomings, they do not see it as Dubai… not even close.

But then, does Dubai actually have a “slave system”?

Dubai does not legally condone a slave system. Migrant workers and domestic helpers in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are not classified as property, and slavery is prohibited under UAE law.

The country has faced international criticism over the Kafala (sponsorship) system, in which human rights groups have documented cases of worker abuse. In response, the UAE has introduced labour reforms, including standardised contracts and measures to improve worker mobility and protections.

Therefore, equating Dubai’s worker system to slavery oversimplifies a complex issue shaped by enforcement gaps rather than explicit legal endorsement.

Read related: ‘Southeast Asia HATES Singapore!’ — SG woman says, ‘The hate is valid because our wealthiest built their wealth off the exploitation of SEA migrant and domestic workers’