Spaces of Deflection and Deportability Beyond Anti-trafficking

  • Sallie YeaEmail author


In this chapter I turn to explicitly engage with the key question raised in the book: why do so few of these exploited migrant workers in Singapore attain protection or redress through the provisions of Singapore’s emerging anti-trafficking infrastructure? Given that internationally accepted characterisations and indicators of human trafficking, such as those developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UNGIFT), provide a ready fit to many of the migrants whose experiences were laid out in Chaps.  5 and  6, this emerges as a highly relevant question. As I will argue in this chapter, exploited migrant labourers who may well have claims as victims of trafficking within Singapore are disqualified or excluded at various stages of anti-trafficking interventions. In this chapter I focus particularly on exclusion through the application of what I refer to as ‘legal-jurisdictional exceptionalism’, which may be understood as the disqualification of victims through invocation and manipulation of legal-spatial demarcations, particularly external borders and internal boundaries.


  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barrientos, S., et al. (2013). Dynamics of unfree labour in the contemporary global economy. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(8), 1037–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bokhari, F. (2008). Falling through the gaps: Safeguarding children trafficked to the UK. Children and Society, 22(3), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2018). Factbook. Retrieved April 17, 2018, from
  6. Coleman, M. (2008). Between public policy and foreign policy; U.S. immigration law reform and the undocumented migrant. Urban Geography, 29(1), 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darling, J. (2011). Domopolitics, governmentality and the regulation of asylum accommodation. Political Geography, 20, 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Jenova, N. (2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallagher, A., & Pearson, A. (2010). The high cost of freedom: A legal and policy analysis of shelter detention for victims of trafficking. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(1), 73–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gorman, C. S. (2017). Redefining refugees: Interpretive control and the bordering work of legal categorisation in U.S. asylum law. Political Geography, 58, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenpeace. (2016). Made in Taiwan: Government failure and illegal, abusive and criminal fisheries. Taipei: Greenpeace.Google Scholar
  12. Hepburn, S., & Simon, R. (2010). Hidden in plain sight: Trafficking in the United States. Gender Issues, 27(1–2), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyndman, J., & Mountz, A. (2008). Another brick in the wall? Neo-refoulment and the externalisation of asylum in Australia and Europe. Government and Opposition, 43(2), 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Labour Organisation (ILO). (2006). Maritime Labour Convention. Retrieved from
  15. ILO. (2007a). International Labour Conference. Working in Fisheries Convention (No. 188). Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  16. ILO. (2007b). International Labour Convention. Working in Fisheries Recommendation (No. 199). Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  17. International Maritime Organisation (IMO). (1978). International Convention on Standards in Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). London: IMO. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from,-Certification-and-Watchkeeping-for-Seafarers-(STCW).aspx.
  18. Martin, L. (2012). ‘Catch and remove’: Detention, deterrence, and discipline in noncitizen family detention practice. Geopolitics, 17(2), 312–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Singapore. (2008). Need for Foreign Domestic Workers (FDW) Dorm to be looked into. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from
  20. Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Singapore. (2015). MOM statement on alleged human trafficking by Step-Up Marine Enterprise LLP. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from
  21. MOM. (2012). Singapore Inter-agency Taskforce’s detailed response to the 2012 U.S. State Department’s trafficking in persons report. Singapore: MOM. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from
  22. Mountz, A. (2004). Embodying the nation-state: Canada’s response to human smuggling. Political Geography, 23(3), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mountz, A. (2011). Spectres at the port of entry: Understanding state mobilities through an ontology of exclusion. Mobilities, 6(3), 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mountz, A., & Hiemstra, N. (2012). Spatial strategies for rebordering human migration at sea. In T. M. Wilson & H. Donman (Eds.), A companion to border studies (pp. 455–472). London: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mountz, A., & Hiemstra, N. (2014). Chaos and crisis: Dissecting the spatiotemporal logics of contemporary migrations and state practices. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(2), 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mountz, A., & Loyd, J. (2014). Transnational productions of remoteness: Building onshore and offshore carceral regimes across borders. Geographica Helvetica, 69, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mundlak, G. (2009). De-territorialising labour law. Law and Ethics of Human Rights, 3(2), 189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Musto, J. (2016). Control and protect: Collaboration, carceral protection, and domestic sex trafficking victims in the United States. Oakland: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nonnemacher, S. (2014). Trafficking at sea: The situation of enslaved fishermen in Southeast Asia. In S. Yea (Ed.), Human trafficking in Asia: Forcing issues (pp. 139–164). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. NZ Herald. (2012, May 12). Crackdown on foreign fishing vessels.Google Scholar
  31. Tazreiter, C. (2015). Lifeboat politics in the Pacific: Affect and the ripples and shimmers of a migrant saturated future. Emotion, Space and Society, 16, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. TWC2. (2012). Blacklisted from Singapore for her boss’s mistake. Singapore: TWC2. Retrieved May 13, 2018, from
  33. TWC2. (2013). Maid used as ‘runner’ has nowhere to go. Singapore: TWC2. Retrieved May 13, 2018, from
  34. Tzvetlova, M. (2002). NGO responses to trafficking in women. Gender and Development, 10(1), 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UNODC. (2000). Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Vienna: UNODC.Google Scholar
  36. US DoS. (2011). Annual trafficking in persons report. Washington, DC: US DoS.Google Scholar
  37. Walters, W. (2008). Bordering the sea: Shipping industries and the policing of stowaways. Borderlands, 7(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, J. M. (2015). From humanitarian exceptionalism to contingent care: Care and enforcement at the humanitarian border. Political Geography, 47, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yea, S. (2013, May). Social visits and special passes: Carceral spaces for migrant sexual labourers in Singapore. S’pores. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from
  40. Yea, S., Balakrishnan, B., & Fordyce, D. (Eds.). (2018). A thousand and one days: Stories of migrant worker hardship in Singapore, Volume 3. Singapore: TWC2.Google Scholar
  41. Yea, S., & TWC2. (2012). Troubles waters: Trafficking of Filipino men into the long-haul fishing industry in Asia. Singapore: TWC2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social InquiryLa Trobe UniversityAlbury-WodongaAustralia

Personalised recommendations