Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore — Contentions with Data, and the Good that Data can bring for Advocacy
For this particular assignment, I had given myself two particular objectives — (1) do a topic I am passionate about, and (2) demonstrate the power that data and its storytelling can bring. Given that one of this week’s theme’s option was Population, I decided to focus on understanding the Foreign Domestic Workforce in Singapore.
Understanding the FDW Landscape in Singapore
Source: Made by me
Foreign domestic labour (FDWs) from neighbouring countries like Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar play a significant role in Singapore by alleviating the care burden and enabling the gainful entry of Singaporean women into the formal economy As of December 2018, foreign domestic workers compose roughly 18.3%, 253,800, of the foreign manpower in Singapore and 1 in 5 Singaporean households employ a FDW. As seen in the figure, FDWs entering the Singapore workforce has seen an increasing trend from 2013 to 2018.
While Singapore is commonly perceived to be one of the safer employment destinations for migrant young women seeking cross-border economic opportunities, its ‘skill-based’ legal and immigration policy regimes excludes the (deemed) low-skilled FDW multi-dimensionally and asserts the FDW of their ‘outsider’ position in Singaporean society. Crucially, the Singaporean Government has effectively drawn a bifurcation between skilled (foreign talent) and unskilled (foreign worker) migrant labour.
The Singapore government has held a consistent position on the negotiation of employment contract terms as to be agreed upon between the FDWs and the employer. The Ministry of Manpower (the government agency in charge of workforce policies) reasons this state of affairs as the “impracticality to regulate specific aspects of domestic work” and “difficulty of enforcement due to their nature of work in a home environment and the varying habits of households”.
The vulnerability of FDWs to poor working conditions is hence arguably exacerbated by the FDWs’ location of employment as in the private realm of the home, which makes enforcing regulations difficult. Furthermore, while the FDW is included in the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the ambiguous work conditions recommended are without hard limits for what is deemed “‘adequate’ rest, ‘adequate’ food, and ‘acceptable’ accommodation,” (Humanitarian Organisation of Migration Economics, 2018) which leaves FDWs vulnerable to abuse.
The FDWs’ “structural confinement (i.e. institutionalised regime) to selective employment rights” is especially pertinent when one considers the nature of domestic labour which is bound to a private, and therefore apolitical domain (Tan, 2010, p.3). This highlights the simultaneous instrumentality and marginality of the FDW’s position in society. As Tan writes, FDWs are disproportionately curtailed in their “ability to openly assert their ‘rights’ in the public realm” and the workplace grievances of the FDW are thus depoliticised.
The Importance of Research to FDW-related Non-Governmental Organisations
In is the exclusionary status of the FDW in Singapore society which then explains the flourishing landscape for FDW-related Non-Governmental Organisations in Singapore. Civic society actors interact with the state and migrants to enhance migrant rights. These NGOs play an integral role in providing FDWs access to social services in a space where the state has been relatively inactive. Some of these services that NGOs provide include; skills-upgrading, education, food, shelter for abused FDWs, provisions of necessities, and legal aid.
Notably, these NGOs’ favoured strategy to gain headway in expanding migrant rights in Singapore is the use of data-driven, research-based advocacy. The prolific research arm of NGO Humanitarian Organisation Migration Economics is one such example. This strategy is contextualised to the structurally and institutionalised constrained civil society space in Singapore where accommodation is de rigeur in the interactions between civil society and state actors. This advocacy strategy has seen some successes (albeit arguably limited) such as through the NGOs’ campaign in 2008, a collaboration between TWC2, HOME and UNIFEM, to legislate the FDWs’ right to a weekly day-off in Singapore. This data-driven advocacy is a way in which alignment can be sought between civil society actors and the state by appealing to the state’s numerically-driven frame.
Contentions regarding Data Interpretation in the FDW-related Civil Society Landscape
Interestingly, the ways that the government and civil society actors have used data has seen instances of contention. This can be attributed to the differing intent of the state and the NGOs as well as demonstrates the subjectivity of using data to tell the story that these stakeholders intend to tell.
In 2018, the Ministry Of Manpower had labelled a research study as #fakenews. The study surveyed 735 Indonesian and Filipino foreign domestic workers (FDW) in 2015 and found that three in five maids here are exploited and one in five maids are victims of forced labour. While the research study was published by a Sydney-based organisation, Research Across Borders (RAB), and is hence not done by a local NGO, it can be seen to be an iterative example of how data can be utilised to paint differing pictures. The Ministry of Manpower had criticised the study and accused the respective researchers for “painting a misleading picture of the employment of FDWs in Singapore”.
MOM had based their labelling of the research study as fake news due to disagreements in research methodology. It said the RAB research team had used an overly simplified interpretation of labour exploitation. In the study, the Employment Act was used to determine the excessive extent of hours that FDWs work. Since FDWs are not covered by this law, the research study was deemed to be inaccurate.
While other NGOs such as HOME have demonstrated scepticism to RAB’s study, I note that MOM does not have the ‘data storytelling’ highground. MOM had also published studies in the past on migrant workers which were deemed questionable and painted an overly positive picture of the FDW experience in Singapore. For example, one of their study’s findings showed that 9 out of 10 migrant workers are happy working here. This finding has also been routinely contested by a range of FDW-related NGOs in Singapore, and MOM’s potential selection bias for their studies have often been called into question.
Understanding the Vulnerabilities of FDWs using Data
Understanding this context, I wanted to see for myself the vulnerabilities and difficulties that FDWs face in gaining better employment conditions.
I then sought to collect data. During my research process, I had stumbled upon a Facebook public group entitled ‘FDW in Singapore (working conditions forum)’. Their objective was to “discuss employment conditions, share information, exchange opinions and improve awareness.” I was fascinated by the fact the group had 30,000 over members welcomed a wide range of stakeholders such as FDWs, employer, agents, decision-makers and fellow advocated. Notably, the wide range of actively engaged FDWs it had outreach too demonstrated the group’s potential to collect data surveying the general state of FDW employment conditions.
Source: Made by me
One of the elements that were hotly contested in the RAB study was the number of FDW working hours per day. In a poll conducted by the group, 52% of the 1,000+ respondents indicated that they worked excessively long hours ranging from 14 to 18 hours per day. To put this in context, if an individual is covered under Singapore’s Employment Act, the individual is only contractually obligated to work up to 9 hours per day. Employers who require their employees to work more than 12 hours a day or more than 72 hours of overtime a month will have to apply to the Ministry for exemption.
While I note that FDWs are not under the Employment Act (and am also not articulating agreement with RAB’s interpretation of the data), it would seem that FDWs are indeed vulnerable to long working hours. Perhaps then, domestic work should be covered under the Employment Act, or at the very least, employers should be recommended to benchmark the hours worked to national standards. Given my own knowledge of FDWs’ extremely low pay, and the blurring of the private and public domains for FDWs, this data visualisation does seem to demonstrate that more policy action should be done in ensuring the employment welfare of FDWs.
Case study of FDWs’ Experience of Religion
Source: Made by me
The private domain of the home as a place of employment for the FDW is also seen to blur their ability to enact even the most basic right to religious freedoms. While 63% of 538 FDWs had indicated that that they would found their employer’s attitude towards their practice of their religion, a disturbing majority (96%!) would not express their unhapiness to stakeholders such as MOM or NGOs if they were banned from engaging in their own religious practices.
In a quote by a FDW on the forum, “Religion is very important to me. Balancing our life, control our emotion. Moreover we(helper) live with other family, leaving our own family and loves one. Only Allah will always with us. Pray is the only way to make my mind straight that Allah never gives me something out of my strength. My employer is Chinese Christian, I am a moslem. We respect each other about our religion. I can do what a Muslim have to do. In Ramadan, my ma’am gives me extra allowance to make sure I have enough food for sahur. I have hari raya leave yearly.”
While it is important to note that the landscape is not all doom and gloom, and some Singaporean employers are respectful and open towards the private spheres of the FDWs’ lives, it is the cases of the minority that I personally worry for.
In the case of religion, the disallowal to practise could potentially be a form of emotional abuse, or at the very least makes the mental well-being of the FDW extremely poor. This is because religious identity could be a crucial constituent of the FDWs formation of personal identity and ties to home. The likely minority who are unable to practise their religion may then find it especially difficult to voice out their feelings.
This lack of ‘voice’ is not a matter of individual agency, but rather is a product of a general lack of options in advocating for their own rights.
The structural conditions of such lack of voice can be attributed to the lack of portability of work visas which bind them to their employers and gives great power to the employer to revoke their work permits at will. As noted by NGO Hagar, FDWs could fear reporting anything less than ‘a good opinion of their employers’, sidelining even what they deem as personal welfare e.g. the practice of religion, lest it be taken as an extenuating factor of their possible repatriation.
Conclusion
This assignment has been an illuminating one in demonstrating the power of visualising data for effective advocacy. If anything, I have walked away with an informed opinion on how the blurring of the private and public domain has extended vulnerabilities in the FDWs’ limited ability to advocate for their own embetterment of employment conditions.
References Cited:
Cheah, W. (2009). Migrant Workers as Citizens within the ASEAN Landscape: International Law and the Singapore Experiment. Chinese Journal of International Law. Oxford University Press. 8 (1), 205–231
Chok, S. (2019). Behind Closed Doors: Forced Labour in the Domestic Work Sector in Singapore. 1–77. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a12725612abd96b9c737354/t/5c3d7b534fa51aa111983e4a/1547533156689/FINAL Forced Labour Report V8.pdf.
HelperChoice. (n.d.). Overview — Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.helperchoice.com/singapore/foreign-domestic-workers-in-singapore-statistics
Koh, C., Wee, K., Goh, C., & Yeoh, B. (2017). Cultural mediation through vernacularization: Framing rights claims through the day‐off campaign for migrant domestic workers in Singapore. International Migration, 55(3), 89–104
Ministry of Manpower. (2017, December 1). MOM statement on Research Across Borders study. Retrieved from https://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/press-replies/2017/1201-mom-statement-on-rab-study?fbclid=IwAR01PwauKUdGsm_YRLasPPmfTal2P7Ksy8u0KuzNqvwUjS0UZXLGtmR9Eq0
Ministry of Manpower. (2019, March 14). Foreign Workforce Numbers. Retrieved from https://www.mom.gov.sg/documents-and-publications/foreign-workforce-numbers
