Connect with us

Opinion

Singapore’s construction industry and its ethical dilemma

Opinion: Singapore’s reliance on cheap migrant labor in construction faces challenges, particularly with the political unrest in Bangladesh. The COVID-19 pandemic should have taught us the risks of over-reliance, urging a shift towards sustainable and equitable labor practices.

Published

on

Singapore’s skyline, marked by gleaming skyscrapers and cutting-edge infrastructure, represents a modern city-state’s relentless pursuit of progress.

Yet, this success is underpinned by an uncomfortable reality: the nation’s construction industry is heavily dependent on a migrant workforce from less developed countries. These workers, drawn by the hope of a better life, often find themselves trapped in a cycle of debt and exploitation.

The Hidden Costs of Development

For many migrant workers from countries like Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar, the journey to Singapore begins with a hefty fee paid to recruitment agents—fees that can range from S$7,000 to S$10,000.

This amount, equivalent to more than a year’s salary, means that these workers effectively spend their first year in Singapore working for free as they struggle to repay their debts. With an average daily wage of around S$16, or S$400-500 per month, their meagre earnings leave little to save after basic living expenses.

This economic model, while advantageous for Singapore’s construction industry, raises serious ethical concerns. The reliance on cheap, indebted labour from less developed countries enables the industry to thrive while offering little in return to the workers who sustain it. However, recent events underscore the fragility of this model.

The political turmoil in Bangladesh, which led to many Bangladeshi workers returning home and companies struggling to replace them, is a clear sign that a reflection is needed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has already taught us the harsh lesson of over-reliance on foreign labour. Are we not to learn from that episode? The recent difficulties in securing Bangladeshi workers, compounded by the near-total internet shutdown in their country, highlight how vulnerable Singapore’s construction industry is to external disruptions.

Moreover, this is not the first time Singapore has faced such challenges. In the past, Thai workers, who once made up the bulk of migrant labour in Singapore’s construction sector, left the country because we didn’t pay them enough to stay. This historical precedent, coupled with the current situation, suggests that the industry is at risk of repeating the same mistakes.

A Question of Ethics and Sustainability

Singapore’s construction industry, in many ways, appears to be caught in a trap of its own making. As local workers have been almost entirely excluded from the industry, the nation’s reliance on foreign labor has deepened. However, this reliance comes with a troubling implication: the industry’s success is, to some extent, predicated on the continued underdevelopment of the countries that supply its workforce.

If these source countries were to prosper, as is the hope of many of their citizens, Singapore’s construction industry could face a crisis. With rising standards of living and better opportunities at home, workers would have little incentive to endure the harsh conditions and low pay in Singapore. The industry, which has not developed a viable alternative or integrated local workers, would find itself without the cheap labour it depends on.

This reality suggests that there may be an unspoken preference for these countries to remain underdeveloped, ensuring a steady stream of low-wage workers to fuel Singapore’s growth. Such a stance, if true, poses a significant ethical dilemma and reflects poorly on the sustainability of the current model.

The recent struggles to replace departing Bangladeshi workers and the lessons from the pandemic should prompt a serious reconsideration of this reliance. Singapore must reflect on its past experiences and move towards a more sustainable and equitable approach to labor in the construction industry.

The Paradox of High Construction Costs

Despite the reliance on cheap labour, Singapore’s construction costs remain among the highest in the world.

According to the latest International Construction Market Survey, the cost of building in Singapore averages US$3,138 per square meter. This is comparable to Paris, where construction costs are about US$3,200 per square meter, and workers earn S$24.99 per hour—a stark contrast to the S$1.50 per hour that a Bangladeshi worker in Singapore might earn. Even Sydney, a city with enforced minimum wage standards, has lower construction costs at US$3,016 per square meter.

This paradox raises an important question: if Singapore is relying on low-paid migrant workers, why are its construction costs so high?

The high costs could be attributed to several factors, including the price of land, materials, compliance with stringent regulations, and profit margin for the construction companies.

However, it also begs the question of why Singaporeans are not employed in these roles with fair wages. Given the high costs of construction in the country, surely there is room to pay local workers a dignified wage and reintroduce them into an industry that has long relied on foreign labour.

The Future of Singapore’s Construction Industry

As Singapore’s reliance on foreign labour becomes increasingly precarious, the industry must face the possibility of a future where its traditional sources of workers dry up. If the economies of these source countries improve, Singapore may find itself without a ready supply of labour, especially as local workers have been largely marginalized in the industry.

The construction industry in Singapore must confront this potential crisis and consider the need for reform.

To those who doubt the ability of Singaporeans to adapt to construction jobs, it’s important to consider recent news of university graduates signing up for bus driving positions that offer S$5,000 a month. This clearly indicates that it’s not the difficulty of the work but rather whether the job offers sufficient pay.

Additionally, many migrant workers receive just a few months—or even less—of training before being certified as professional construction workers, a process that Singaporeans could likely find easier to undertake.

Therefore, the issue isn’t whether it’s impossible for locals to take on these roles but whether construction companies are willing to pay higher wages for their labour.

Ethical labour practices, higher wages, and efforts to reintegrate local workers are not just moral imperatives but necessary steps to ensure the long-term sustainability of the industry.

Singapore’s progress should not come at the expense of others’ suffering or through the perpetuation of global inequalities. Instead, the nation must seek a model of development that is inclusive, fair, and sustainable for all.

In this light, the industry must also reconsider its cost structures and explore how to make construction not only more efficient but also more equitable. By doing so, Singapore could ensure that its development is truly progressive, benefiting not just the wealthy and the powerful, but everyone involved in building the nation’s future.

Continue Reading
1 Comment
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

Are Govt policies and big business interests limiting competition in Singapore?

This opinion piece from Foong Swee Fong explores concerns about how restrictions on private driving instructors and rising COE prices may reflect a broader trend of collaboration between large corporations and the government, potentially reducing market competition and impacting Singaporeans.

Published

on

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Revitalizing democracy in Southeast Asia: Grassroots efforts, youth engagement, and international support

Simone Galimberti highlights the importance of grassroots activism, youth engagement, and international support to revitalize democracy in Southeast Asia. It emphasizes the role of students, global organizations, and bottom-up democratic approaches in promoting human rights and political freedoms.

Published

on

by Simone Galimberti

The 15th of September is celebrated internationally as the International Day of Democracy.

It is a United Nations-sanctioned day, one of the many recognized by the international body to highlight important issues that affect the planet and humanity.

Considering how the member states are so divided on matters of human rights and democracy, it is almost a miracle that there was an agreement to observe an international day on these issues.

Yet, perhaps commemorating this day is not totally surprising considering that even the most heinous regimes consider themselves, at least on paper, adhering to and respecting democratic norms and principles.

In this regard, the Asia Pacific is a global trailblazer, setting a high bar on trumping and stifling civil and political rights and within the wider region, South East Asia is doing its bits to contribute and preserve this track record.

As highlighted by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) in a press release on occasion of International Day of Democracy, “ ASEAN has not shown serious efforts to promote universal values of democracy in its member states such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; holding free and fair elections; a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations; separation of powers; independence of the branches of government; freedom of expression and the press; and constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority”.

The specific theme of this year is the role of Artificial Intelligence to promote or destroy the democratic fabric of our societies.

I am not going to touch on it, not because it is an unimportant issue but because it is essential to talk more about the fundamentals, as underscored by APHR.

I will focus on possible remedies and practical, actionable, concrete initiatives that could really re-energize and re-vitalize democracy and human rights.

First, we need a massive effort at the grassroots level.

The same passion and commitment put into promoting the fight against climate warming and biodiversity degradation should also be shared to promote democracy and human rights.

Indeed, we need an overarching effort to engage the youths of the region in civic actions that can have direct repercussions on improving and enhancing the quality of democracy in the South East Asia.

It is not going to be easy as both students and their higher learning institutions in which they study, are conveniently brushing aside any discussion on human rights and democracy.

Second, the role of the international community.

International philanthropies organizations, human rights organizations working globally have a special responsibility to try to generate interest among the great numbers of detached, insulated and disinterested students of the region.

As we know, it is not that there is apathy and cynicism among them throughout the region. There are best practices, and we can look at the vigour put by students in Thailand to assert their rights and defend democracy.

Those members of the international community valuing democracy and, at least in words, profess steadfast, unflinching support for human rights, no matter risking of being accused of hypocrisy when they sign business deals with authoritarian and semi-democratic regimes of South East Asia, must play a big role.

While it is difficult, often impractical and inconvenient to raise issues of democracy and human rights in the official nations ‘ interactions, we should invest huge sums to support discussions and debate on these issues with local youths.

Ambassadors from these nations should be much more proactive and prioritize public engagements with youths and students.

While in diplomacy, pragmatism and real politick reign supreme, there is nothing that prevents the representatives of nations caring about democracy and human rights from stepping up their efforts.

Funding, even small grants, should be made available to support micro initiatives around human rights and democracy, offering students and young people channels to discuss topics that too often are ignored and neglected.

When their high-ranking senior officials do visit the capitals of South East Asia, they should always prioritize meeting with students and youths.

Such dialogues, even though they are just rich in symbolism and nothing else, would offer a way to embolden new generations to think differently.

Let’s not forget that the United Nations has been recently trying to highlight the importance of human rights to achieve sustainable development.

It means, for example, that climate change cannot be fought without giving people a voice and respecting their rights.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has been pushing to underscore the essentials of human rights through his Call to Action for Human Rights.

That’s why the regional office in Bangkok, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, plays such a vital role.

It should be equipped with more resources to scale its work in the region, also considering the active role played by the High Commissioner, Volker Türk through his initiative, Human Rights: A Path for Solutions, to commemorate, last year, the 75th anniversary of the adaption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

But then we need to tackle what it is, according to APHR, the defining issue, “integrating the institutionalization of democracy norms and promotion into the drafting of the ASEAN Vision 2045, which is set to be adopted in 2025 as the realization of the ASEAN Charter’s promises to strengthen democracy in the region”.

On this case, more awareness and knowledge on the part of the youths on democracy and human rights should lead to an overall discussion on the future of ASEAN.

Like all regional cooperation projects, ASEAN is, by definition, an elite initiative that is far from the day to day lives of the people.

This year and the next one are going to be fundamental for the future of the bloc.

Citizens, with the help of media outlets and with the involvement of social influencers who should espouse the cause, must take an informed interest on the ongoing negotiations on the future of ASEAN.

Ideally schools and universities should debate the way forward for this institution that is so remote and aloof that no one really cares about.

Lastly, we should remind ourselves that the status of democracy is ailing everywhere and not only in the South East Asia.

While we should enable the new generations to get engaged and involved, it is indispensable to find ways to improve the current existing model based on representations and elections.

It is high time that bottom up, deliberative forms of democracy are taken into consideration and given the due importance.

There are many ways to do so by putting the people and especially the youths at the center not only of the conversation but also at the center of the decision making.

While localized, endogenous ways must be found to strengthen democracy in the South East Asia, it is essential to reflect on how to do it.

It is indispensable to make democracy and human rights stronger by rethinking the way democracy works, making it more inclusive and participatory.

The author writes about development, regional integration and democracy and human rights in the Asia Pacific

Continue Reading

Trending