Skip to main content

Stratified Migration: Differentiation and Disadvantages for Low-Wage Migrant Workers in Singapore

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law and Migration in a Changing World

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 31))

  • 577 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the legal framework regulating immigration in Singapore. It provides specific focus on economic migration into Singapore, and how that regulatory framework differentiates between unskilled/low-skilled migrant workers, on the one hand, and skilled professionals and technicians, on the other. The former are treated as temporary workers while the latter as potential citizens. As such, unskilled or low-skilled workers only qualify for work visas under the Work Permit scheme, which is designed to be temporary in nature and with no path to permanent residency or citizenship. This contrasts with the visa regime under the Employment Pass or S Pass schemes, which provides a path to citizenship. As such, migrant workers not only experience de jure disadvantages due to their immigration status but also de facto disadvantages due to their socioeconomic condition.

With gratitude to Shirin Chua, Research Associate at the Centre for Asian Legal Studies, for her assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    MOM (2020a).

  2. 2.

    Bowie (2020).

  3. 3.

    Tang (2020).

  4. 4.

    See e.g. MOM (2020c).

  5. 5.

    TWC2 (2019a, b, c).

  6. 6.

    MOM (2020b).

  7. 7.

    MOM (2017a).

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    MOM (2018c).

  10. 10.

    MOM (2017b).

  11. 11.

    MOM (2018b).

  12. 12.

    Department of Statistics Singapore (2017).

  13. 13.

    Neo (2015), p. 4.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Bustamante (2002), p. 340.

  16. 16.

    Pécoud and de Guchteneire (2006), p. 244.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Bustamante (2002), p. 339.

  19. 19.

    Nash (2017). See further on the origins and confusion surround the term ‘expatriate’ or ‘expat’: McNulty and Brewster (2016).

  20. 20.

    Some have suggested a racist undertone in how the terms are used. See Koutonin (2015) as well as DeWolf (2014).

  21. 21.

    For a brilliant examination of the status and problems faced by foreign brides in Singapore, see Chong (2014), p. 331.

  22. 22.

    See e.g. Cheng (2017).

  23. 23.

    Rajaratnam (1967), p. 149.

  24. 24.

    Yeoh and Yap (2008), p. 1278.

  25. 25.

    Saw (2012), p. 28.

  26. 26.

    SPR (1966b), pp. 344–345.

  27. 27.

    Yeoh and Yap (2008), p. 179.

  28. 28.

    SPR (1966a), col 728–730.

  29. 29.

    SPR (1970), col 401.

  30. 30.

    Yeoh and Yap (2008), p. 179.

  31. 31.

    Teng (1994), p. 411.

  32. 32.

    Lim (2011) and Adam (2013).

  33. 33.

    Wong and Venkat (2013).

  34. 34.

    SPR (2013b).

  35. 35.

    Toh (2017).

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Immigration Act, Cap 133, Rev Ed 2008.

  38. 38.

    Cap 91A, Rev Ed 2009.

  39. 39.

    On sovereignty and open borders, see discussion in Carens (1987), p. 251.

  40. 40.

    Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another [2016] 1 SLR 1020.

  41. 41.

    Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Minister for Manpower (formerly known as Minister for Labour) [1999] 2 SLR(R) 866 (where the High Court held that a finality clause does not oust judicial review where there is a breach of the rules of natural justice).

  42. 42.

    OHCHR (1990).

  43. 43.

    ILO (1948).

  44. 44.

    ILO (2018).

  45. 45.

    ILO (2011). See ILO (2018).

  46. 46.

    ASEAN Secretariat (2017).

  47. 47.

    Nonetheless, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), a migrant worker advocacy NGO in Singapore, has argued that the Consensus sets out aspirational best practices, thus providing a normative framework against which ASEAN Member States can be evaluated and critiqued: TWC2 (2018b).

  48. 48.

    ASEAN (2007).

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    ILO (2007).

  51. 51.

    United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (2009).

  52. 52.

    Piper and Iredale (2003).

  53. 53.

    Ibid, 7.

  54. 54.

    Castles (1986), p. 762.

  55. 55.

    See discussion generally in Martin (2006).

  56. 56.

    In response to a question on freelance employment of foreign workers, Mr Gan Kim Yong said that: ‘[A]s we allow a foreign worker to come into Singapore, we would require an employer to be responsible for the stay and the work of that foreign worker. In the event that this particular foreign worker gets into difficulty, we would need to be able to hold a certain employer accountable and responsible for the well-being of this foreign worker. It will be very difficult for us to open the gate and allow foreign workers to come in without an employer to be responsible for them’: SPR (2010a), col 1660.

  57. 57.

    TWC2 (2014) and Tan (2013a).

  58. 58.

    TWC2 (2018a).

  59. 59.

    Note, however, that they are no longer able to apply for Dependent’s Passes for their parents. Starting 1 January 2018, parents will only be issued Long Term Visit Passes (‘LTVP’) and only those who earn a minimum fixed monthly salary of S$12,000 would be able to sponsor their parents for an LTVP. MOM (2018a).

  60. 60.

    For further critique, see Cheah (2009).

  61. 61.

    Neo (2015).

  62. 62.

    Tan (2010), p. 117.

  63. 63.

    Section 3, Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.

  64. 64.

    Fong (2002).

  65. 65.

    Heng (2014).

  66. 66.

    Ng (2013).

  67. 67.

    Han (2014).

  68. 68.

    Han (2017).

  69. 69.

    Suhaimi (2009).

  70. 70.

    Ong (2011).

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    Part VI, Conditions to be Complied with by Foreign Employee Issued with Work Permit, Fourth Schedule, Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations 2012, S569/2012.

  74. 74.

    Ong (2011).

  75. 75.

    See further Heng (2014) and Suhaimi (2009).

  76. 76.

    Part VI, Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations 2012.

  77. 77.

    Seow (2015) and Liew and Teh (2010).

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    For instance, in 2012, it was reported that the number of foreigners terminating their pregnancies, some of which were Work Permit holders, surged to 3020, up from 1660 in 2003, and almost twice the number of abortions by permanent residents. See Tan (2012). The Ministry of Health has not publicised a resident versus foreigner breakdown of more recent statistics: See Tan (2017). See also Priscilla Goy (2015).

  80. 80.

    Tan (2012).

  81. 81.

    United Nations Economic and Social Council (2003).

  82. 82.

    SPR (2008), col 971.

  83. 83.

    Ibid, col 972.

  84. 84.

    UNIFEM Singapore et al (2011), p. 13.

  85. 85.

    Ibid.

  86. 86.

    SPR (2008).

  87. 87.

    SPR (2008), col 971.

  88. 88.

    UNIFEM Singapore et al (2011), p. 5.

  89. 89.

    ILO (2013a), p. 46.

  90. 90.

    Ibid.

  91. 91.

    Ibid.

  92. 92.

    Ibid.

  93. 93.

    Ibid.

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    The client’s disposable income (income for the past 12 months before the date of application for legal aid and after deducting prescribed allowances) must not exceed S$10,000 per year, and the client’s disposable capital must not exceed S$10,000: LAB (2017).

  96. 96.

    See Pro Bono Services Office, The Law Society of Singapore, Our Services, http://probono.lawsociety.org.sg/About-Us/Our-Services/.

  97. 97.

    MOH (2013).

  98. 98.

    SPR (2010b).

  99. 99.

    SPR (2013a).

  100. 100.

    MOM (2010).

  101. 101.

    See e.g. HOME (2011).

  102. 102.

    Chan (2015).

  103. 103.

    Ibid; see also Nataraj (2010).

  104. 104.

    Zhu (2016).

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    Ibid.

  107. 107.

    Cap 333, Rev Ed 2004.

  108. 108.

    MOM (2016).

  109. 109.

    Rashid (2016).

  110. 110.

    Ibid.

  111. 111.

    Yong (2013) and Tan (2013c).

  112. 112.

    ITUC (2012), p. 3.

  113. 113.

    Ibid.

  114. 114.

    Ibid.

  115. 115.

    Ibid.

  116. 116.

    Cap 67, Rev Ed 2000.

  117. 117.

    Under Section 6(1) of the CL(TP)A, no workman employed in water services, gas services or electricity services shall go on strike, whether with or without notice. Under Section 6(2), no workman employed in any ‘essential service’ included in Part I of the First Schedule shall go on strike without giving his employer 14 days’ notice of his intention to strike, amongst other criteria.

  118. 118.

    Sim and Almenoar (2012).

  119. 119.

    Section 10(a) of the CL(TP)A provides that any person who ‘instigates or incites others to take part in, or otherwise acts in furtherance of, a strike or lock-out which is illegal under [Part III of the Act]… shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding S$2000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both’.

  120. 120.

    Neisloss (2013) and Tan (2013c, d).

  121. 121.

    Ibid.

  122. 122.

    MOM (2013b).

  123. 123.

    Tan (2013c).

  124. 124.

    Amnesty International (2013).

  125. 125.

    HRW (2013).

  126. 126.

    ILO (2006).

  127. 127.

    UNIFEM Singapore et al (2011), p. 25.

  128. 128.

    Minu (2009), p. 13; see further chapter on Singapore in HRRC (2013).

  129. 129.

    UNIFEM Singapore et al (2011), p. 25.

  130. 130.

    Channel News Asia (2017) and Westcott and Hunt (2017).

  131. 131.

    Ng (2017a).

  132. 132.

    Ibid.

  133. 133.

    Ibid.

  134. 134.

    Soezean (2016).

  135. 135.

    TWC2 (2011).

  136. 136.

    The Straits Times (2017).

  137. 137.

    Penal Code, Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008.

  138. 138.

    SPR (1998), col 1923–1924; see further Tan (2010), p. 99.

  139. 139.

    Chua Siew Peng v PP & anor appeal [2017] 4 SLR 1247.

  140. 140.

    Ibid at [140].

  141. 141.

    Pécoud and de Guchteneire (2006).

  142. 142.

    Until the 1970s, workers from West Malaysia dominated the initial flow of migration. However, in the 1970s, when Malaysia embraced an export-oriented industrialisation strategy and restricted the flow of Malaysian workers into Singapore to address its own labour shortages, the Singapore government started permitting the recruitment of migrant workers from ‘non-traditional’ (i.e., non-Malaysian) countries such as India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand, so as to widen the pool of migrant workers. See Kaur (2007) generally. Today, according to the ICA, the common source countries generally fall into one of these three source country/territory groupings: North Asian Sources (NAS) (i.e., Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea and Taiwan); Non-Traditional Sources (NTS) (i.e., India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bangladesh); and The Republic of the Union of Myanmar and Philippines, and People’s Republic of China (PRC): MOM (2018a).

  143. 143.

    Barr (2014).

  144. 144.

    Tan (2010), p. 101.

  145. 145.

    ADF v Public Prosecutor [2010] SLR 874.

  146. 146.

    See e.g. Zaccheus (2017).

  147. 147.

    TWC2 (2017).

  148. 148.

    SPR (2012).

  149. 149.

    Employment Act, Cap 91, Rev Ed 2009.

  150. 150.

    SPR (2012).

  151. 151.

    Ibid.

  152. 152.

    Ibid.

  153. 153.

    Ibid.

  154. 154.

    MOM (2013c).

  155. 155.

    HOME (2012) and TWC2 (2012).

  156. 156.

    In 2011, then-Minister of State for Community Development, Youth & Sports Halimah Yacob had called for weekly rest days for domestic helpers in response to the new ILO Convention to grant domestic workers greater protection from exploitation. Singapore was among 63 voters that abstained from voting on the Convention—MOM had said that it would sign the treaty only when it was sure it could implement it here. Then-MP Yacob had expressed hope that Singapore ‘would take stock of its laws and policies and progressively make changes’ to be in line with the Convention: Spykerman (2011).

  157. 157.

    Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations, the current maximum penalty for a breach is a fine of up to S$10,000 and/or a jail term of up to 1 year: MOM (2013a).

  158. 158.

    HOME (2012).

  159. 159.

    TWC2 (2012).

  160. 160.

    Ng (2015).

  161. 161.

    Tan (2013b).

  162. 162.

    HOME (2012).

  163. 163.

    TWC2 (2012).

  164. 164.

    HOME (2012).

  165. 165.

    MOM (2013a).

  166. 166.

    It states: ‘If your FDW returns home late, you should talk to her and remind her to observe the agreed time of return, and to advise her not to repeat it on the next rest day’. Ibid.

  167. 167.

    SPR (2013c).

  168. 168.

    Ibid.

  169. 169.

    See MOM (2017d).

  170. 170.

    See MOM (2017c).

  171. 171.

    Lee (2003).

  172. 172.

    ILO (2013b).

  173. 173.

    MOM (2013c).

  174. 174.

    Liu Huaixi v Haniffa Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 270.

  175. 175.

    Chia (2013).

  176. 176.

    Ibid.

  177. 177.

    Ibid.

  178. 178.

    For instance, migrant workers are generally protected under, inter alia, the Factories Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Trade Unions Act, and the Skills Development and Levy Act.

  179. 179.

    Shrestha and Yang (2019).

  180. 180.

    Ibid.

  181. 181.

    UNIFEM Singapore et al (2011), p. 61.

  182. 182.

    Ibid.

  183. 183.

    Ibid, 62.

  184. 184.

    HOME, http://www.home.org.sg/home/index.html.

  185. 185.

    Healthserve, http://www.healthserve.org.sg/.

  186. 186.

    TWC2, http://twc2.org.sg.

  187. 187.

    FAST, http://www.fast.org.sg.

  188. 188.

    ACMI, http://acmi.org.sg.

  189. 189.

    ACMI provides social/legal assistance, counselling and befriending services to all migrant workers, foreign construction workers, foreign domestic workers, foreign spouses and their families, foreign students and transients.

  190. 190.

    MWC, http://www.mwc.org.sg.

  191. 191.

    Ng (2017b). See also Salleh (2014).

  192. 192.

    Wessels et al. (2017) and Westcott and Hunt (2017). See, however, the government’s response: Ng (2017b).

  193. 193.

    Pécoud and de Guchteneire (2006), p. 245.

  194. 194.

    TWC2 and The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (2011).

  195. 195.

    Dacanay (2017).

  196. 196.

    Tan (2008), p. 247.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaclyn L. Neo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Neo, J.L. (2022). Stratified Migration: Differentiation and Disadvantages for Low-Wage Migrant Workers in Singapore. In: Foblets, MC., Carlier, JY. (eds) Law and Migration in a Changing World. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99508-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99508-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99506-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99508-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics