Domestic helpers deserve protection, too – and a better deal

Lynzy Valles

Industry groups and lawmakers have recently been calling on the government to tighten oversight of the city’s domestic helpers, citing concerns about the quality, accountability, and regulation of these workers.

However, amid such calls, what appears to be missing is an equally serious discussion about the rights, welfare and living conditions of the workers themselves.

Employers have platforms and opportunities to air their frustrations about their helpers, but domestic helpers don’t. They don’t have the airtime for it. Migrant associations can only do so much.

Just last week, a lawmaker called on the government to review existing rules covering domestic helpers, including measures that allow workers to receive a paid return ticket home when their employment ends or a contract is terminated. The lawmaker also urged Macau to draw on Hong Kong’s experience in regulating the sector.

But before Macau looks at how to further regulate domestic helpers, perhaps it should first ask a more basic question: Are these workers being given enough to live on in the first place?

In 2024, the Labour Affairs Bureau raised the minimum salary for domestic helpers from MOP3,000 to MOP3,200 per month. While government statistics put the average salary at around MOP5,000, an average does not tell the whole story: some workers earn more, but others may still be earning the legal minimum.

In 2026, that MOP3,200 minimum is much harder to justify.

Macau has a statutory minimum wage for many workers, including those employed in cleaning and security services, but domestic helpers are excluded. A labor official defended this exclusion, saying that “domestic helpers are special, and families [who] employ domestic workers are providing jobs, and the domestic workers are not there [to help them] make a profit.”

In Hong Kong, the minimum allowable wage for foreign domestic workers is HKD5,100 per month – a stark contrast to Macau’s.

But the issue goes beyond salary; pay is only one part of the problem.

A MOP500 housing allowance does not go very far in a city as expensive as Macau. It becomes even less meaningful if a worker is expected to share a home with six or more other people.

And if we are genuinely concerned about the quality of domestic work, shouldn’t we also be concerned about the conditions under which that work is performed?

A worker who is exhausted, stressed or living in overcrowded conditions may struggle to perform at their best. Insufficient rest and the emotional strain of being separated from family can also take a toll on their well-being.

It is understandable that employers want stronger protections. They should have them. Employers who face misconduct, contract violations or other legitimate problems should have clear and effective avenues for recourse.

But protection should not be a one-way street.

If lawmakers are serious about reforming the system, they should advocate measures that protect both sides. Cross-departmental oversight, agency accountability, proper record-keeping and immigration controls, as suggested by lawmakers, can all play a role. But so can meaningful wage standards, decent housing support, and access to assistance.

If we demand better workers, should we not give them better deals and conditions?

Their contribution to local households and economy should not make them less deserving of basic protections.