Friday, 13 June 2008, 10:23 am |
4,851 views
By not offering adequate protection to
foreign workers, the government has created the conditions that
make it advantageous and lucrative to hire foreigners over
locals.
Jolovan Wham
Economic fears and resentment towards foreign
workers usually rest along two main premises: they take away jobs
that locals can fill, and they lower the wages of local
workers.
Whilst it is understandable that foreign workers
are found in jobs such as those in the construction sector because
it is too dirty, difficult and dangerous for locals to do, what
seems to have attracted the most vocal critics is the presence of
foreigners in the service sector as these jobs can easily be taken
up by the local poor.
Opposition political parties have also jumped
into the debate, questioning the government’s pro-immigration
policies, and criticising it, fairly enough, for not protecting the
interest of local low wage workers.
The Singapore Democratic Party’s May Day message
this year accused the government of letting an ‘influx of cheap
foreign labour’ reduce local workers to doing ‘contract and casual
jobs.’ Similarly, The Worker’s Party called on the government to
put Singaporeans first, lest the societal standing of Singaporean
workers is eroded by the presence of foreign
workers.
Public endorsement of the exploitation of foreign
workers
There is no doubt that our
government is unabashed about its liberal recruitment policies for
foreign workers. In fact, it has been trumped as a model of
economic development for Singapore.
Take this excerpt from PM Lee’s May Day speech as an
example:
First, foreign workers are hardworking and
willing to work long hours. By hiring them, coffee shops can open
late, or even 24 hours, round the clock.
Second and more importantly, with the help of
foreign workers, airport, seaport, factories, offices, hotels,
restaurants and retail outlets can offer better service and
business hours: 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, they can run their
operations, service their customers, and so strengthen Singapore’s
overall competitiveness.
Third, many SMEs do not make good profits,
especially the neighbourhood shops. If they can hire some foreign
workers in addition to the locals, they can reduce their business
costs; otherwise, they may have to go out of business. Their
Singaporean employees will then lose their
jobs.
What is disturbing, though not surprising about
PM’s speech is its public endorsement of the exploitation of
foreign workers. Our businesses and ports can run 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, 365 days a year on foreigners because we have created
an industrial and work culture that disciplines them into accepting
conditions that local workers would not usually agree to. We have
allowed businesses to cut corners by squeezing foreign workers
dry.
Our restrictive work
permit system, which ties foreign workers to a single employer,
makes it difficult for them to bargain for better working
conditions and higher wages. Many fear losing their jobs if they
dare to ask for more. Returning to their countries of origin
remains a frightening option as many would have taken out loans of
up to $9000 just for a chance to work in Singapore.
These workers slog long hours not only to support their families
but to re-pay their debt.
In the 3 years that I have worked with HOME as a
social worker, almost all of the foreign workers who approached us
for assistance did not have written contracts with their employers.
Of those with contracts, they are written by employers with the
sole purpose of protecting their own interests, rather than
creating an equitable relationship between themselves and their
workers. Our unions also do little to demand better working
conditions for them.
Compromising rights in the name of ‘economic
development’
Products and services can
be produced cheaply when business costs such as wages, taxes, and
the cost of complying with regulations are kept low. In
Singapore,
it seems we are willing to compromise the rights of individuals in
the name of ‘economic development’. Somehow, we believe that by
granting rights to workers, the societal gains we have made, and
the economic prosperity that we have enjoyed all these years will
be threatened.
One example that is often
cited is how legislating a minimum wage for workers will affect the
competitiveness of Singapore’s
economy. It will drive potential foreign investors away and make
the cost of doing business here too high. This argument rests upon
the assumption that Singaporean workers compete with workers of
other countries on the basis of how ‘cheap’ our workers are. In a
country that has a relatively educated work force and a government
that exhorts its population to ‘life long learning’, the skills and
knowledge of our workers should be the competitive factor, rather
than how costly it is to hire them.
When workers are poor and lack legal protection,
they are often willing to work longer hours for lower wages. Hence,
the reason employers are willing to hire foreign workers in favour
of local workers is because working conditions of all low wage
workers in general are poor to start with, and not because we are
allowing too many of them in.
Employer and employee – a power
imbalance
By not offering adequate
protection to foreign workers, the government has created the
conditions that make it advantageous and lucrative to hire
foreigners over locals.
Hence, blaming foreigners
for taking away local jobs and depressing local worker’s wages is
not an adequate analysis of the problem. Capping limits on the
numbers of foreign workers entering the country will not be a long
term solution. Rather, we should be working on improving the lot of
all workers
in Singapore.
If hiring foreign workers does not become a cheaper alternative, we
need not be so concerned that foreign workers are stealing jobs
from local workers.
The Employment Act, which
was enacted in Singapore’s
post independence years is limited in its protection of worker’s
rights. The amount of medical benefits, annual leave, rest days,
and provisions of work hours and salary payments that the Act
provides for leaves much to be desired. Our government prefers
employees to negotiate working conditions with their employers,
rather than guaranteeing better protection through legislative
action. However, by adhering so adamantly to this ‘free market’
model, we conveniently ignore the power imbalance that exists
between both parties. As a result, workers – both local and foreign
– are worse off because of it.
—————–
About the
author:
Jolovan is a social worker with the Humanitarian
Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME).
—————–
TOC thanks Jolovan
for contributing this article to our Human Rights Focus
Week.