March 5, 2023

In many wealthy economies, concerns about the exploitative working conditions to which migrant workers are often subjected have galvanised civil society action, leading to the formation of Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) which advocate for the rights of migrant workers. In Singapore, various NGOs had been campaigning for a day-off policy for migrant workers since 2003, culminating in the introduction of mandatory weekly rest day policy on 5 March, 2012.

In ‘Cultural mediation through vernacularization: framing rights claims through the day-off campaign for migrant domestic workers in Singapore’ (International Migration, 2017), Mr Chiu Yee Koh (TWC2), Ms Kellynn Wee (NUS Sociology and Anthropology), Ms Charmian Goh (NUS Asia Research Institute) and Professor Brenda S.A. Yeoh (NUS Geography and Asia Research Institute) analyse how the day-off campaign for migrant domestic workers in Singapore evolved into a success. They argue that civil society actors effectively framed migrant rights claims in a way that resonated with the institutional logics and cultural repertoire of Singapore society.

Firstly, the NGOs reframed rights claims for migrant workers into a moral appeal. Although Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly provides for the right to have reasonable amount of rest and leisure, right-based-claims were perceived to be overly confrontational in Singapore. Instead, the activists chose to portray migrant workers as Third World inhabitants seeking a better life in Singapore, thus deserving sympathy, or, at minimum, a benevolent paternalism from Singaporeans.

Secondly, the NGOs sought to persuade Singaporean employers by cost-benefit analysis. Moral appeal could still be interpreted as a personal affront to Singaporean employer’s harsh employment practices. Thus, the campaign focused on highlighting the benefits Singaporean employers could reap from granting rest days, such as higher productivity and a better employer-employee working relationship. The implicit logic, however, is that rest days are granted for migrant workers to be better workers, not for their personal welfare.

Finally, civil society actors managed to effectively communicate with the government by situating the provision of migrant labour protection within the state’s narrative of economic development. Recognising that policy reforms in Singapore are often driven by economic imperatives, the NGOs cautioned that Singapore’s reputation as an attractive labour destination could be tarnished if its legislative protection for foreign domestic workers had lagged behind international best practices.

While the authors recognise that these campaign strategies failed to challenge the use-and-discard approach to low wage labour migrants in Singapore, they reckon that the strategies are nevertheless effective in turning controversial claims into something aligned with the mainstream Singaporeans’ way of thinking, thereby improving migrant workers’ welfare in consequence.

Read the article here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/imig.12332