Neoliberalism within Immigration Policy in Singapore

Conversely, the Work Permit category is located at the bottom of the visa tier-list. Comprising 16.7% of Singapore’s total population, these pass holders occupy the bulk of the migrant worker landscape. Separated into two categories: Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process (CMP) and Migrant Domestic Worker (MDW) pass holders, this pass is designed to help Singapore fill urgent labour shortages in traditionally shunned areas of work (Ministry of Manpower 2021). These unskilled or semi-skilled workers are subject to starkly differential immigration treatment and policy measures that restrict them in virtually every realm of life to ensure that they do not gain a permanent foothold in the geobody of the nation (Yeoh 2004). For example, they are not granted the privilege of bringing their children or spouses with them, are required to undergo bi-yearly medical examinations to check for pregnancy, and are proscribed from marrying Singaporean nationals without state permission. They have virtually zero chance of remaining in Singapore as permanent residents, let alone acquiring citizenship.

In other words, work pass holders are mere economic tools for Singapore’s survival. They are only permitted entry into the city-state to erect the necessary infrastructure, clean the area, and serve the needs of local Singaporeans and foreign talents, and are discarded when this work is done.

Structural Violence and the Lived Realities of Migrant Workers

Neoliberal hegemony has come to narrowly reward those who are able to produce certain forms of economic worth. For those who cannot adequately produce, there is erasure of voices, social exclusion and degraded worth (Somers 2010). Such forms of structural violence forms an everyday reality for migrant workers at every juncture of their lives. From the beds they wake on, to the transport that ferry them to work, to the lack of bargaining power they wield, migrant workers are disempowered on a daily basis, treated as economic apparatus instead of humans. We observe how structures of exploitation fold into Singapore’s neoliberal immigration policies, forming the context in which violence against migrant workers persists.

Take the example of migrant workers being compressed into vehicles without safety equipment to transport them from their dormitories to their worksite. Given that buses are the safer choice for transporting migrant workers, why do migrant workers continue to be carried on lorries, where their safety is so vastly compromised? The Singapore government argues practical and operational concerns, and that using buses instead of trucks increase costs resulting in considerable productivity loss since buses cannot be used to dually convey both personnel and equipment. At the heart of this issue lies the tradeoff between cost and worker safety. There is little doubt that it will cost more to improve worker safety, but ethically, do economic considerations outweigh the safety of workers? In any situation, it is difficult to justify how human safety can be compromised for the sake of money. It appears that the lives of migrant workers are too cheap to push the policy to change. As a society, Singapore must recognise that migrant workers are equals and not merely factors of production or a means to an end.

The government is not oblivious to this role that has been carved out for migrant workers—the commodification and precarisation of migrant workers is a deliberate effort as economic prosperity is contingent on such differential treatment of immigrants and subsequent exploitation of the low-skilled. The Work Permit scheme is designed to perpetuate such structural violence through a network of complicity that includes the state, employers, agents and others. Workers are kept economically insecure through employment terms which include low wages, short fixed-term contracts and numerous intermediaries (recruitment agencies, sub-contractors) (Chin 2019). Representatives from Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) raised issues such as “late or non-payment of salaries, poor accommodation conditions and food provision, the constant threat of forced repatriation, workplace injuries and lack of medical assistance, and the government’s placing of heavy burdens of proof on foreign workers in adjudication of disputes.” (TWC2 2014)

Recommendations

As a country whose economic success is largely founded on the labour of immigrants, Singaporean society must redefine its discourse on migrant workers. As a democratic state, Singapore must accept that social harmony rests upon the fair treatment of all communities, and that it cannot be at the expense and exclusion of minorities. Although migrant workers are recognised to the extent that their existence is accepted as a reality for Singapore’s economic prosperity, much can be improved by adopting a more humanised portrayal of migrant workers as integral to the socio-cultural fabric of society, as opposed to the prevailing idea that they are transient.

It is also vital that the government grows cognisant of the oppressive structural policies that form a reality for minorities, and understands the intrinsic inequality that comes with neoliberal ideology and the commodification of migrant workers. The state should recognise that migrant workers are not transactional economic apparatus, but individuals with humanity. With immigration policy, an added human-rights approach is necessary counter to a purely neoliberal approach.

A human-rights approach should prioritise long-term preservation of migrant workers’ rights while also valuing their personal autonomy and capacity to contribute to economic development. Such an approach would involve strengthening existing policy measures to remedy the structures that debilitate migrant workers. Key policy improvements include reducing or eliminating recruitment fees, establishing higher standards for living conditions, incorporating more comprehensive and inclusive social protection schemes, and working proactively with the private-sector, especially small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to improve awareness about and actions in support of migrant workers

(International Organization for Migration 2021)

Chin, Chuanfei. 2019. “Precarious Work and Its Complicit Network: Migrant Labour in Singapore.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 49 (4): 528–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2019.1572209.

Dugo, Andrea. 2022. “Neoliberal Singapore: Nation-State and Global City.” Singapore’s First Year of COVID-19, 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0368-7_2.

Hui, Weng-Tat. 1998. “The Regional Economic Crisis and Singapore: Implications for Labor Migration.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 7 (2-3): 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719689800700204.

International Organization for Migration. 2021. “Spotlight on Labour Migration in Asia.” Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/Spotlight-on-Labour-Migration-in-Asia.pdf.

Liow, Eugene Dili. 2011. “The Neoliberal-Developmental State: Singapore as Case Study.” Critical Sociology 38 (2): 241–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920511419900.

Ministry of Manpower. 2021. “Foreign Workforce Numbers.” Ministry of Manpower Singapore. 2021. https://www.mom.gov.sg/documents-and-publications/foreign-workforce-numbers.

Somers, Margaret R. 2010. Genealogies of Citizenship : Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TWC2. 2014. “How ‘Law’ Fails Migrant Workers.” TWC2. March 14, 2014. https://twc2.org.sg/2014/03/27/how-law-fails-migrant-workers/.

Yeoh, Brenda S. A. 2004. “Cosmopolitanism and Its Exclusions in Singapore.” Urban Studies 41 (12): 2431–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980412331297618.