1. The sender implies that humanity ("kindness, respect, and sympathy towards others", Longman) is secondary to, or is in fact negligible when considering the needs of certain Singaporeans, presumably such as herself.
2. It seems the only cost that matters is the financial burden upon the employer, never mind the physical and emotional stress of having to work seven days a week.
3. Inhumanity is apparently a necessity.
4. $450. The sender would pay her maid nothing if she could.
5. You read it here first. Increasing the frequency of maids' days off decreases birth rate.
6. Conveniently omitted are other needy groups such as unlucky gamblers, driving test failures, and those that trees have befallen. What support would there be for these groups? The government might want to seriously consider doling out free maids to anybody and everybody who screws up in life.
7. Maids are needed sometimes for us to function effectively, as are douche bags.
8. I suspect what the sender meant to say was, "I am not against giving them days off, as they may drop like flies otherwise, and that wouldn't do, now would it? They are, after all, not robots, which if the government would prudently invest in and accelerate the development of, could replace foreign domestic workers, and none of this day off nonsense would be relevant, since all of these lesser "beings", if you will, could just buzz off. Haha!"
9. In summary, being humane, i.e. alleviating the suffering of maids, would bring suffering upon employers, whereas the ideal is the reverse.
10. Palatable? Pui!