Singapore was initially lauded for its approach in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. But this quickly flipped to criticism when the outbreak spread uncontrollably in worker dormitories, exposing the country's questionable treatment of its foreign workers. Although Singapore still has one of the lowest fatality rates in the world, and has since managed to regain control over the virus, the pandemic has brought attention to the status of migrant workers in the country, and their place in society.
Attitudes towards foreign workers in Singapore
A recent study in 2019 by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) revealed Singaporeans' views towards foreign workers. Only one in four Singaporeans believe there is a need for migrant workers here, although seven out of ten agree there is a labour shortage. Additionally, 60% of those surveyed even felt that migrant workers should not have the same pay benefits as Singaporeans. This sums up the paradox of the place of migrant workers in society: Although they are necessary for the economy, they are not entirely welcome.
While the poor living conditions in dormitories in Singapore received a lot of attention in recent months, another high-profile case displaying society's attitude towards foreign workers is that of Parti Liyani. Liyani, a foreign domestic worker (FDW) from Indonesia was accused of stealing from her employers, the wealthy and prominent family of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong.
The ILO report states that 32% of respondents in Singapore felt that migrant workers cannot be trusted. Liyani was initially found guilty and sentenced to two years in jail. After appealing against the convictions, the High Court overturned the convictions in 2020 when it was found that the prosecution could not prove that there was no "improper motive" behind the Liew family's accusations.
The outcome of the Liyani case raised questions about how society in Singapore perceives FDWs. Why are some so quick to accept that a foreign worker accused of a crime must indeed be guilty?
However, despite these seemingly negative attitudes towards migrant workers, Singaporeans are still reluctant to take up low-skilled work or jobs with low pay. This is why migrant workers have been, and are still, essential to Singapore's growth. Despite this, it is difficult for them to apply for citizenship due to various measures such as the Work Permit system and foreign worker levies.
Given how important this segment of society is to Singapore's success, should a pathway to citizenship be offered to them? Jeevan Vasagar, former correspondent for the Financial Times, believes so, and recently expounded on this in an opinion editorial that talks about how Singapore can strengthen its role in Southeast Asia. We look at some of the benefits that offering migrant workers citizenship or residency could bring about for Singapore.
The challenges of implementing new measures
According to Vasagar, one of the main benefits of allowing a pathway to citizenship for foreign workers is that the demographic challenge would be solved. Singapore currently faces the problem of an ageing population. More relaxed immigration policies could increase the pool of human resources for the country's continued progress.
However, in reality, given societal constraints on the number of new citizens and residents each year, the government will have to continue to exercise selectivity. Associate Professor in Practice Terence Ho from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy explains, "It is likely that Singapore will continue to take in more foreign workers than society is prepared to take in as citizens. The threshold to be considered for citizenship or residency will therefore remain considerably higher than for obtaining a work pass." Priority for citizenship still ultimately depends on the candidate's skills and contributions to Singapore.
Dr Mathew Mathews, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, explains that the Singaporean wage model does not work for lower-paid migrant workers. Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions, for example, would not be feasible given their current salaries. In terms of living costs, remaining in Singapore is simply not sustainable in the long term for many of these workers. They will likely leave anyway.
Additionally, the current demographic shortfall does not necessarily require them to stay in Singapore on a long-term basis. The shortage in human capital needs to be filled in by younger, able-bodied individuals. It therefore seems more practical for migrant workers to work here for a shorter term, then return home at a later stage.
Professor Ho points out that it is also important not to assume that jobs currently unattractive to Singaporeans will always remain so. If pay and working conditions can be improved, jobs can be redesigned to be more attractive to Singaporeans.
That being said however, it would still be beneficial to improve migrant workers' welfare, job and living conditions, as well as skills acquisition, while they are in Singapore.
Greater inclusivity benefits all
As mentioned earlier, Singaporeans are generally unwilling to take on jobs that are lower skilled and lower paying. Vasagar's suggestion would also lead to the increase of women in the workforce. This is significant as many of the roles usually avoided by Singaporeans are taken on by women, such as care work or entertainment services.
The term "low-skilled" tends to carry the connotation that migrant workers are less competent. However, if we were to start viewing these workers as having expertise in sectors that Singaporeans avoid, this narrative can be changed. Their skills are clearly necessary and Singapore owes much of its success to their hard work.
By viewing migrant workers as a more important part of society, it could also further the push for better regulatory frameworks to prevent exploitation and improve living conditions. This in turn would give them more incentives to build a life here and contribute to society.
Another possible outcome that Vasagar believes would ensue is that it would improve ties between Singapore and other countries in the region.
As Dr Mathews states, "More can be accomplished if we ensure that while they are in Singapore they have positive experiences, fond memories, and see an improvement to their human capital. In reality, this is already happening, which is why there are villages in various countries in the region, where returning migrants encourage their family and neighbours to find a job in Singapore."
However, Dr Mathews also acknowledges the challenges that come with this. Granting a migrant worker residency status or citizenship necessitates that they may be able to bring their family members to reside here with them. He states, "It will be a real challenge to accommodate their families in Singapore especially when the wages of lower skilled migrant labour or domestic helpers cannot sustain an entire family if settled locally."
This in turn implies that migrant worker wages should be increased, which would translate to an increase in costs across all sectors. This is likely to be met with some resistance. Therefore, stakeholder interests are important when considering changes in immigration policy.
Feasible and sustainable policy considerations
Perhaps Singapore is not yet ready to offer a pathway to citizenship for foreign workers, before first considering all stakeholder interests. However, a more feasible option that could be adopted in the short term is residency status, or longer term passes. This in turn could allow for policy changes that would improve the lives of these workers.
The most glaring problem presently is the segregation of workers into dormitories. Social inclusion is important in creating a more cohesive society where people feel they belong. The continued ghettoisation of migrant workers' accommodation has been heavily criticised by both local and international voices.
Greater enforcement of workplace health and safety regulations is also essential in ensuring a better quality of life. Professor Ho suggests, "Policies could include promotion of good human resource practices to foster workplace inclusion and tackle discrimination, education on social customs (for foreigners and locals), better infrastructure and transport planning (to minimise overcrowding and social disamenities), as well as promotion of joint activities and common spaces."
Changing narratives through promoting evidence of the benefits of greater inclusivity is also necessary. A positive effect of social media is that there have been more instances of good deeds done by migrant workers shared publicly. This helps to change the misconception that greater numbers of migrant workers leads to greater crime or fewer opportunities for locals. The media also has a part to play in its depiction of migrant workers and its choice of language when describing them.
More resources could also be dedicated to increasing avenues and services to cater to migrant workers facing exploitation or abuse. Similarly, greater support could also be provided to existing shelters and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as Aidha and the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME).
Even if these migrant workers do not ultimately end up staying in Singapore, there is no reason why their experience here should not be a positive one. As Dr Mathews says, "We should find more ways to make sure that their stint in Singapore will add to their acquisition of skills which will help them back in their home countries." Their time spent here can be mutually beneficial to both themselves and the Singaporeans that enjoy the fruits of their labour.