15

30-year Ashok Arunachalam remembers the

industrial accident that mangled his leg right

down to the exact minute it happened. He

repeats it like a mantra: “20th December, 2012.

10:15 am.”

“This has been the most difficult year of my

life,” he says. “I couldn’t even walk to the toilet

on my own after the injury. I found myself alone

in the dormitory most of the time, with no one

around to help.”

Arunachalam’s story is indicative of the expe-

rience of a number of foreign migrant workers in

Singapore16. As of June 2012, there were close

to 722,800 non-domestic foreign migrant work-

ers on specialized Work Permits, out of which

306,500 are construction workers. These con-

tractual agreements (codified in a separate visa

category) don’t allow workers to change jobs

or marry Singaporeans. Permission to work in

the country is stacked heavily in favour of the

employers, and the threat of deportation for

‘troublemaking’ looms large over every worker.

Construction workers who suffer a work-

place injury, like Arunachalam, are put on

what’s called a “Special Pass” by the Ministry

of Manpower. Workers can’t seek any further

employment or leave the country while their

case is being reviewed and compensation dis-

bursed, a process that takes anywhere between

a few months to years.

It’s not simple. Red tape and legal jargon per-

meate every stage of the process. In many cases,

an “intricate web” of deals with middlemen,

kickbacks at multiple levels, spurious contracts

and wage exploitation then kicks in, leaving

workers stranded17.

It’s a trying period for someone like

Arunachalam, who’s incurred deep debts in

order to obtain this job (he was paid 900$ per

month) and finds himself alone, confused, in

pain in a society and system he doesn’t quite

understand.

Stuck in limbo for a bureaucratic process

to run its course, Arunachalam’s case is a win-

dow into a complex policy dilemma that faces

the rich city-state – treating its one million for-

eign migrant workers with dignity, fairness and

a guarantee of rights; -alleviating the frustration,

melancholy and alienation they face while living

here. ATM

Striking a fair Balance: Foreign Construction Workers in Singapore

by Krish Raghav

16

Some of that underlying tension and grievance

simmered to the surface on December 8, 2013

in an incident described as the first “riots” in

Singapore for over four decades.

Close to 400 South Asian migrant workers

squared off with riot police and security person-

nel in the Little India neighbourhood after an

Indian national was fatally run over by a private

bus. Little India is a centrally-located precinct

with many South Asian restaurants, businesses

and bars where workers congregate on days off.

According to the Singapore Police, a ‘mob’

allegedly fuelled by alcohol went on a rampage

after the accident, pelting police with impro-

vised projectiles (such as a garbage can) and

setting an ambulance alight. 39 policemen and

civil defense staff were injured and 25 vehicles

damaged. The number of injured workers and

rioters is unknown18.

The Government responded with a range of

immediate measures. A ban on the sale of alco-

hol was swiftly imposed in the Little India neigh-

bourhood, and police presence was ramped

up. New measures under the Public Order

(Additional Temporary Measures) Bill give police

greater powers to search and detain anyone

they deem a ‘threat to public order’19. 200 work-

ers received advisory notices from the police

after initial investigations, and 45 were arrested.

Of these, 25 were deemed “active participants”

in the riots. Charges against another ten were

withdrawn after further review.

Controversially, 53 workers whose participa-

tion in the riot was labeled “less egregious” were

repatriated from Singapore. A few days later,

four of the ten workers acquitted in the investi-

gation were also deported. Civil society activists

have expressed deep concerns over this devel-

opment, with groups like Workfair Singapore

pointing out that it “undermined” the system’s

dedication to due process.

Singapore’s Ministry for Law defended the

action, with Minister K. Shanmugam stating that

repatriation decisions were also administrative

decisions of “time and expense” over judicial

process20. In response, Workfair Singapore said,

“Justice should never be subordinated to cost or

the possibility of abuse: the remedy is fine tun-

ing procedures to make them more efficient.” 21

A back-and-forth ensued between the

Ministry and activists, culminating in a letter

published in the TODAY newspaper where the

ministry stated that a foreign national subject to

repatriation had “no right under [Singaporean]

law to challenge the executive repatriation

order in court.”

The threat of arbitrary repatriation has

always been an issue for foreign migrant work-

ers. “Singapore has not ratified the crucial

Convention 143 of the International Labour

Organization, which protects the rights of

Boiling overby Krish Raghav

17

migrant workers from arbitrary deportation

and guarantees due process,” says Braema

Mathi, the President of local human rights group

MARUAH. “Workers seem to have a clear route

to deportation, but no clear route to justice.”

“Workers seem to have

a clear route to deporta-

tion, but no clear route

to justice.”

Braema Mathi, President of local human rights group MARUAH

Activists point out that the language in the

ministry’s response was also telling, projecting

the impression that being in Singapore was a

“privilege” accorded to the workers.

Both the government’s post-riot rhetoric

and policy response allow a glimpse into the

long-term challenges and pitfalls of this issue.

Framing the presence of foreign workers as

the granting of a “privilege” ignores the fact

that Singapore needs them desperately. The

Housing and Development Board (HDB), among

the largest employers of foreign construction

workers, is ramping up building of new flats in

order to meet a housing shortage – releasing

13,600 flats in 2013. In November, it made 8,952

flats available in a single launch, the largest in its

history. This number is projected to more than

double to 28,471 Built-to-Order flats in 2014.

But there has been no equivalent rise in dor-

mitory accommodation for workers, the supply

of which still suffers from a severe shortfall and

lack of quality control.22

Policy rhetoric in Singapore has always

made a fundamental conceptualization of for-

eign workers as purely economic entities – a fac-

tor in a model. The language of ‘human rights’

or ‘moral imperatives’ that activists evoke has

had no place in this discourse. Indicative of

this: a suggestion in April 2013 by the National

Development Minister to house workers on off-

shore islands was actually considered briefly. 23

Actions, therefore, have been both heavy

handed and piecemeal. “The MOM’s approach

[to many aspects of the issue] is discretionary,”

says Russell, president of local NGO Transient

Workers Count Too (TWC2). “Sometimes prac-

tices are disallowed, and sometimes tolerated.”

These also tend to be kneejerk reactions to ‘inci-

dents’ or concerns raised by activists in main-

stream and alternate media.

In late January 2014, acting Manpower

Minister Tan Chuan-Jin cited a survey his min-

istry had conducted in 2011, saying that “90

per cent of about 3,000 work permit holders

and 500 S-pass holders” were “satisfied” with

their stints in Singapore. There was no basis, he

added, to allege that widespread abuse of for-

eign workers in Singapore was an underlying

cause of the riot.

Ultimately, this inertia on both sides has

led to a policy gridlock on the issue, with the

government content to maintain and enforce

an uneasy status quo. It shows a reluctance

to commit to any specific policy path – be it

minimum wage, an independent claims pro-

cess, or a rethinking of the fundamental eco-

nomics of cheap migrant labour. At the same

time, activists and civil society groups have

to draw partial conclusions based on partial

data, and are unable to make comprehensive

recommendations.

“The riots should have sparked a debate, a

soul searching about what kind of society we

want to create for migrant workers,” says Jolovan

Wham of local NGO Humanitarian Organization

for Migration Economics (HOME). “But it instead

may enhance social control mechanisms against

migrants.” ATM

18

Migrant Workers and the Arts

Sai In 2008, a proposal to convert an unused school, the Serangoon

Gardens Technical School, into a dormitory for foreign workers led

to an angry, intense opposition campaign by residents of the nearby

Serangoon Gardens condominium. Over 1,600 households in the

vicinity signed a petition opposing the plan, arguing that housing

foreign workers nearby would “create security and social problems

and spoil the ambiance of the estate”.

The Serangoon Gardens incident highlights an issue often

glossed over in policy debates: the social integration of workers

into Singaporean life, and their interactions with Singaporeans. The

depiction of South Asian workers in popular culture is often reduced

to stereotypes and racist caricatures, and they’re often marked as

undesirable elements.

But a number of local artists and activists are working to change

that – presenting both an alternative view of Singapore from the

worker’s point of view, and introducing Singapore to culture and

traditions from countries like Bangladesh.

Little India has been a source of inspiration for many local pho-

tographers. Aikbeng Chia’s collection of street photos titled “Tonight

the Streets are Ours” looks at the eclectic, joyous, fiercely multicul-

tural street life of the neighbourhood.

In 2012, Joses Kuan, 26, Ng Yiqin, 24, and Bernice Wong, 24, started

a project called “Beyond the Borders, Behind the Men (BTBBTM)”, an

online social initiative documenting the lives of Bangladeshi workers

in Singapore. So far, the project has produced short films, online vid-

eos and a photo exhibition at the Art House - hoping to add depth to

what they termed a ‘one-dimensional’ representation of Bangladeshi

workers in Singapore.

In March 2013, they also held an outdoor theatre production

in Little India called ‘Hard Times, Easy Money’ starring workers

involved with a new cultural space called Dibashram. Located on the

upper floor of a conserved shophouse in the middle of Little India,

Dibashram aims to run free programmes, recreational activities and

cultural events for and involving the migrant worker.

It’s also become a much-needed resting spot for workers on days

off. A stream of workers go in and out of the airy studio space, taking

naps during the day or picking up a local Bangla newspaper that’s

edited and drafted there.

In September 2013, entrepreneur Adrianna Tan organized a

“Biryani/Beriani” event where Singaporeans, expats and South

Asian migrant workers shared Biriyani (a spicy rice-based dish),

and swapped knowledge of the Indian subcontinent’s diversity of

Biriyani traditions.

Another photography project, InsideOut, provided migrant

workers with basic photography skills and asked them to photo-

graph their views of Singapore. The volunteer-run initiative was

inaugurated in 2005 and featured in exhibitions in 2009 and 2010.

In 2011, 25 migrant workers, including some residents of shelters run

by the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics (HOME),

participated in 10 intensive workshop sessions.

19

It’s important to note here that the experience

of many migrant workers in Singapore is also

extremely positive. In fact, the vast majority of

workers finish 4-6 year stints in Singapore with-

out incident, send money home and return to

start businesses or take local jobs. Even some

injured workers, like 29-year old Prabhu who

suffered an accident after five years of construc-

tion work in Singapore, successfully fought a

compensation claim and won. “I’m going home

in four months,” he says, content.

But this picture attributes economic ‘success’

as the sole signifier of a system that also causes

some fundamental psychological anxieties and

deep alienation in workers. And at the heart

of the problem, in both positive and negative

experiences, is a gigantic asymmetry in power

in the worker ecosystem.

Before coming to Singapore, migrant work-

ers have to obtain what’s called an ‘in-princi-

ple approval’ that mentions their employer

and salary. This averages at S$ 600-800. “Since

Singapore doesn’t have a minimum wage, I’ve

seen IPAs with salaries as low as S$ 400,” says

TWC2’s Russell.

But once workers reach Singapore, they’re

sometimes given completely new contracts

(often with lower salaries) to sign. By this point,

they’ve already incurred a debt in getting placed

at the job and have no choice but to accept this

bait-and-switch, a practice called ‘Contract

Substitution. “Contract Substitution is consid-

ered illegal in many parts of the world,”, says

TWC2’s Russell Heng “But no Singaporean law is

broken here. And the worker has no recourse. “

An additional obfuscation occurs with

deductions to a worker’s base salary – costs

incurred for room and board or meals are some-

times not made transparent in initial contracts.

Once in Singapore, the lack of viable alternatives

means accepting the deductions, and a lowered

salary than expected.

As the workers begin their jobs, this asym-

metry continues. Employers are allowed to repa-

triate at will, and terminate workers for the flim-

siest of reasons. Co-workers are often unwilling

to provide testimony in support of the accused

worker for fear of suffering disadvantages in

their daily work routine. This creates a climate

of fear and submission, accentuated by the

practice of hiring so-called ‘repatriation com-

panies’ that have been reported to harass and

threaten ‘troublemakers’ or workers with ‘atti-

tude’ problems.24

In this climate, it’s no surprise that a web of

unsavory elements rears its head. Companies

sometimes hold on to workers’ wages as col-

lateral for ‘good behaviour’, middlemen seduce

workers with illegal work that pays higher

hourly rates, and documents like pay slips and

contracts are often missing (their issuance is not

mandatory) or conveniently ‘lost’, making offi-

cial complaints next to impossible. 25,26,27 ATM

Charting the worker ecosystemby Krish Raghav

Foreign workers enjoying a meal together on their day off(c) Latiff, H. (2014, January 5) more at: http://bit.ly/Latiff_set

20

The data crunch

The remarkable output of research and

analysis from Singapore’s NGOs that work

with migrant workers is despite access to

data, and not because of it. There is still a

huge data crunch, gaps in statistics and

information that is not available to the

public.

“Information asymmetry is alive, and

very deliberately kept alive”, says Siew

Kum Hong, the vice president of MARUAH.

“The government therefore will always

have a strategic advantage in policy

debates since they have all the data.”

Part of the problem is selective dis-

semination. The government picks what

it releases, and even data is released

appears in aggregated form with no qual-

ifiers or context. “We don’t even have

some basic numbers, such as the number

of Indians, or Chinese workers among con-

struction workers overall. “ says HOME’s

Jolovan Wham.

This puts commentators at a distinct

disadvantage, and prevents answers to

questions that would really move the pol-

icy debate forward, such as the impact of

wages on HDB costs. “We often to find

clever work-arounds,” says Kum Hong.

“We may not have raw data, but we can

always question the methodology, infer-

ence and assumptions.”

MARUAH President Braema Mathi

hopes to connect it to a larger issue of

information and media freedom. “Until we

have a Freedom of Information Act,” she

says, “data on issues like this will always

be held hostage to government interests.”

A busy lane in the busy district of Little India, Singapore(c) Latiff, H. (2014, January 5) more at: http://bit.ly/Latiff_set

21

There’s therefore a cluster of issues that migrants

face in Singapore today. First, a loose regulatory

framework that creates issues around work-

place safety, medical care and access to ser-

vices. Second, a economic model that, without

a minimum wage or frameworks for due pro-

cess, stacks power structures heavily in favour

of employers. Third, a deepening lack of social

integration that creates issues around space,

security and alienation.

But the solutions are not that simple. The

economic tweaks that would guarantee a mod-

icum of security are opposed by construction

companies, who argue that rising wages make

many new projects unsustainable.28 A common

rhetorical question asked at forums and work-

shops on the issue is ‘Are Singaporeans pre-

pared to pay more for their properties if wages

go up?’ The answer, of course, is no – but in the

absence of clear analytical data (See Box 4 on

pp.20), it’s hard to gauge if this is the right ques-

tion to ask. 29

The long term solutions of better integration

and greater labour mobility are also problematic

– their effects are too nebulous to be of immedi-

ate political advantage, and their tone too sen-

sitive in the wake of heavy protests against the

recent government Population White Paper that

advocated an increase in Singapore’s popula-

tion to 6.9 million.

In 2010, Member of Parliament Yeo Guat

Kwang said the government was not looking at

the migrant workers’ issue “from the perspec-

tive of human rights”. “At the end of the day,” he

said, “whatever factors would be able to help us

to sustain the growth of the economy for the

benefit of our countrymen…we will definitely

go for it.”30 The conflict at the heart of this issue

isn’t one of competing policy options, but of

competing perspectives. ATM

The Bigger Pictureby Krish Raghav

Road construction workers during a night shift in Singapore(c) Latiff, H. (2014, January 5) more at: http://bit.ly/Latiff_set