Marginalization of unskilled migrant workers

From UBC Wiki

Background

In the 21st century, globalization has created a network and flow of information, resources, and labour across the globe. Foreign talents are highly sought after in global cities such as New York, Tokyo, and Paris. According to Richard Florida's creative class theory, the agglomeration of the ‘creative’ class or talent labour drives the locational choices of new economic growth (Florida. 2004). The geography of new economic growth is dependent on the development of companies around the concentrations of talented people, structures that underlies a city like its diversity, tolerance and openness, architecture and infrastructure, has great impacts on the appeal to prospective foreign talents (Florida. 2004). Transnational migrant talents are welcomed by the state in hopes of developing a more diverse and vibrant socio-economic structure. It enhances transnational relationships, and has a positive effect on the economy especially in the knowledge-based sectors (e.g. market analysis and evaluators, financial consultants, etc). Conversely, Low-skilled migrants are less appealing due to the nature of their work, which often means that they are more susceptible to be marginalized and displaced by society and the state. These work are often referred by some geographers as the 3Ds (Dangerous, Dirty, and Demeaning), and are hence associated with this class of migrants specifically (Fudge. 2004). Micheal Foucault theory on bio power also suggest that the state has the power to determine which lives matters and which are those that are deemed as deviant, transparent, and less desirable. In this way, the state could control the regulate which bodies that it deems to be 'healthy' for the nation, and which are not.


Case study - Singapore

Historically, migration and the flow of labour, resources, and capital were crucial to the development of Singapore as a city-state, predominantly due to its geographical size and limitations (Yeoh & Lai. 2008, Yeoh. 2006, Yao. 2007). There are many different types and groups of migrants in Singapore, which are motivated by different political, socio-economic, and demographic reasons. Low-skilled migrants such as domestic workers or construction workers from the Philippines and Indonesia often travel to Singapore, in search of better economic prospects and employment opportunities, and they often engage in the low-wage sectors of the market (Yeoh. 2006, Yeoh & Huang 2010). There was a steady flow of migration of unskilled foreign labour to Singapore in the 1970s, as the country was industrializing and needed manpower for its manufacturing and other industrializing sectors of the market (Yeoh. 2006). It is part of a migration movement of labour within the region itself, what Yeoh (2006) calls an “intra-Southeast Asia migration” pattern, where less developed countries (source) supply labour to fast growing industrializing countries (destination) in the region. This influx of low-skilled migrant workers was fuelled by their acceptance to low-wage employment, and the reluctance of Singaporeans to engage in manual labour jobs even in times of depression (Yeoh. 2006). Although they play a critical role in the country's development, they are treated quite differently by society and the state.


State Policies

Low-skilled migrants are undermined by state policies and regulations, such as their eligibility to Permanent Resident (PR) and citizenship status, subjectivity to mandatory health screenings, etc. Under the R-pass employment work permit, they are subjected to a ‘maid levy’ which is a security bond of $5000 (Yeoh. 2006, 2010). They are not permitted to be accompanied by any dependent, they cannot marry local Singaporeans and PRs, and can only work in the designated sector of the economy (Yeoh. 2006, 2010). These states policies are strategically imposed to regulate the numbers of transnational domestic workers, and to prevent the over reliance on this class of migrants in the market (Yeoh & Huang. 2010). The nature of the work that these domestic workers engage in is often considered as ‘private’ and flexible, and is therefore difficult to implement specific employment conditions, and fall outside of the Employment Act (Yeoh. 2006). Therefore, little is done by the state to encourage or accommodate their presence in public space, as these bodies often transgress the boundaries between what is private and public (Yeoh. 2006).

On the other hand, Singapore’s economic strategy then was to focus on developing a ‘highly-skilled’ human resource base due to its restrictions in natural resources and limited manpower, which favoured foreign talents instead (Yeoh. 2006, Yao. 2007). One significant difference between the state policies governing skilled migrant as compared to unskilled migrants is that they are usually issued P or Q employment passes, as compared to the R passes which are issued to low-skilled migrants (Yeoh, 2006). These passes (P & Q) are intended for the highly skilled professional migrants only, and it enables them privileges which are not enjoyed by low-skilled migrants. For example, they are not susceptible to levies, they are able to bring along family members and dependents, they may work in any sector of the economy, and they may apply for PR and citizenship status (Yeoh. 2006, Yeoh & Huang. 2010). This is a clear dissimilarity in state policies and regulation between the two different classes of migrants. This ties back the to notion of biopower explained by Micheal Foucault.


Cultural and social implications

Citizens in Singapore have different outlooks on the two types of migrants, and this indirectly affects the inclusion of the migrants into society, and how these bodies are incorporated into the nation body. There are many reason for this distinction, which includes the type of jobs they engage in, their nationality, race, gender, etc. One particular example is the way domestic workers are regarded and viewed, both by society and their employers. These migrants are often considered to be inferior due to the nature of their job, which is allegedly to provide a service, assistant, to serve a family or household by undertaking domestic chores (Yeoh & Huang. 2010). They are more likely to be exploited, abused, and marginalized by society. Besides the issue of the difference in class and status, migrants are also viewed as external bodies coming from the ‘outside’, which are not considered to be a part of the state body and society. To be ‘othered’ by the host society is to deny their existence as a body that belongs. Certain groups of migrants in Singapore can often be seen gathering in public spaces such as Lucky Plaza (Filipinos), Golden Mile Shopping Centre (Thais) and Little India (Indians/Bangladeshi). These places have become iconic for the population that inhabit that space, and is spatially and culturally excluded from the main body of the state. Their presence in public space as an ‘othered’ body can invoke notions of negativity and marginalization. There are many examples of issues with foreign bodies in Singapore, such as the recent racial riot in the Little India of Singapore in 2013. There are many other factors that may play a part to the discrimination or marginalization of this class of migrants, such as race, gender, and ethnicity. It is more than an issue of Xenophobia, but rather there are much more underlying complex relationships that are at play that results in the marginalization of such bodies in a state or society.

References

  • Brenda S.A. Yeoh. (2006). Bifurcated labour: The unequal incorporation of transmigrant in Singapore. Volume 97, Issue 1, pages 26–37. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2006.00493.x
  • Brenda S.A. Yeoh & Kamalini Ramdas (2014) Gender, migration, mobility and transnationalism, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 21:10,1197-1213, DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2014.969686
  • Brenda S.A. Yeoh & Lai Ah Eng (2008) Guest editors’ introduction,Asian Population Studies, 4:3, 235-245, DOI:10.1080/17441730802496474
  • Florida R. (2004). Cities and the Creative Class. Routledge. Retrieved 28 June 2016, from http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=11364
  • Judy Fudge (2014). Making claims for migrant workers: human rights and citizenship, Citizenship Studies, 18:1, 29-45, DOI:10.1080/13621025.2014.865894
  • Yao, Souchou. (2007). Singapore. Routledge. Retrieved on 12 March 2015, from <http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=71489>
  • Yeoh, B. A., & Huang, S. (2010). Transnational Domestic Workers and the Negotiation of Mobility and Work Practices in Singapore's Home-Spaces. Mobilities, 5(2), 219-236. DOI: 10.1080/17450101003665036
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Marginalization_of_unskilled_migrant_workers&oldid=418416"