“We Are Human Beings Too,” Migrant Domestic Workers' Rights in Singapore

“We are human beings too,” Migrant Domestic Workers’ Rights in Singapore.

Candidate number: 177656

MA Gender and Development: 921M9

Academic Year 2017/2018

Word Length: 10,380

Abstract

This paper examines how social movements operate to negotiate rights for foreign domestic workers in Singapore. The leading advocacy non-governmental organisations, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) and Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) establish a case study for this analysis. By using discourse analysis, this research argues that the two studied organisations draw from three dominant discourses on victimhood, civic society and rights. Further, by circulating these diversified framings, the two studied organisations build contrasting images of the foreign domestic workers in their advocacy in order to appeal to different target groups.

Key words: social movements; foreign domestic workers; feminization of migration; rights; discourse; gender.

Contents

Abstract ...... 2

List of abbreviations ...... 4

List of figures ...... 4

Preface ...... 5

Introduction ...... 6

Background ...... 6

Research Question...... 7

Methodology ...... 8

Data Collection and Evidence ...... 8

Data Analysis ...... 9

Conceptual Framework ...... 10

Social movements ...... 10

Social movements for migrant workers’ rights ...... 11

Social movements for migrant domestic workers’ rights ...... 12

Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore: policy environment around hiring FDWs and NGO organising ...... 12

Organisations advocating on behalf of migrant domestic workers...... 14

Humanitarian Organisation for Migration (HOME) ...... 14

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) ...... 15

Social movements’ discursive analysis ...... 16

Victimhood Discourse ...... 17

Civic Society Discourse ...... 20

Rights-based Discourse ...... 23

Conclusions ...... 25

References ...... 27

List of abbreviations

CEDAW - United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

FDW – Foreign Domestic Worker

HOME – Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics

ILO – International Labour Organisation

MOM – Ministry of Manpower

MDW – Migrant Domestic Worker

NGO – Non-governmental Organisation

PAP – People’s Action Party

TWC2 – Transient Workers Count Too

List of figures

Figure 1: Key features of the advocacy discourses used by the TWC2 and HOME

Figure 2: "I need rest days" image on HOME's website

Figure 3: "She's not just your maid. Her name is Lita." Poster prepared for the Day Off campaign in cooperation between TWC2, HOME and UNIFEM NC Singapore

Figure 4: "Domestic Workers need their days off too". Image circulated with TWC2’s press release

Preface

To establish a background for the analysis, I conduct a secondary literature review outlining social movement theories. Within this framework, I situate social movements working for migrant workers’ and migrant domestic workers’ rights. Moreover, I illustrate policy environment around foreign domestic workers’ rights and avenues for mobilizing for the rights. The concepts and theories that I explore within this paper are grounded in the work of scholars such as: Diani, Della Porta, Snow, Soule, Kriesi, Fairclough, Yeoh, Piper and Lyons and more. A significant part of the analysis comes from my own examination of discursive practices within materials produced by the two studied organisations.

I would like to thank my supervisor Sarah Scuzzarello for her guidance, support and incredible insight into migration issues. It was inspiring to work with you. I would also like to thank the wonderful colleagues and friends from the MA Gender and Development course for being an inspiration, motivation and an unconditional support. This dissertation would not have been possible without your encouragement. Lastly, I would like to thank my mother for allowing me to chase my dreams and for enabling me to pursue a Master’s degree at IDS. I love you.

Chapter 1. Introduction

Background

According to the World Migration Report (IOM, 2017), in 2015, there was an estimate of 244 million international migrants worldwide with over 40% from the Asia Pacific region. Following the shifts in migration trends from South-North to South-South, more than half of the estimated 59 million migrants from the Asia Pacific migrated to the countries located within the region. Although the percentage of international migrants globally equates to only 3.3 % of the population, the numbers are constantly increasing. Growing migration has social, political and economic impacts on both sending and receiving states. For example, migration can enable the economic development of states (UN ESCAP, 2016). Receiving states include newly industrialized countries within Asia Pacific such as Singapore, China, or Malaysia, which are interested in cheap foreign industrial and domestic labour. On the other hand, persons from sending countries migrate for employment and a chance of improving and securing livelihoods for themselves and their families.

These dynamics between sending and receiving states have an impact on the international gendered division of labour. With so many opportunities for employment in domestic work in receiving states, there has been a global feminization of migration. This is a particularly gendered phenomenon because it is the changing socioeconomic role of women that leads to a need for help to manage the domestic work. The commodification and commercialization of domestic work makes it possible to hire low paid migrant workers (Gündüz, 2013, p.33). Migrant domestic workers (MDWs) equal 7.7 percent of all migrant workers worldwide, and as many as 8.45 million domestic workers are female (Galotti, 2015). In Asia Pacific, nearly 40 percent of female migrant domestic workers migrate to Southeast Asia, with Singapore and Malaysia the top two destinations (Galotti 2015, p. 29). More particularly, Singapore presents an interesting case as the country has an increasing demand for domestic help (Yeoh, Huang and III, 1999) due to an aging population. This increases the high rate of labour participation of women in the country. Also, as of December 2017 Singapore hosted 246,800 foreign domestic workers (FDWs) on work permits from the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and also Bangladesh, India and Myanmar (MOM, 2018). Within Singapore, FDWs make up almost 17 percent of the total foreign workforce and more than 4 percent of the total population. According to Saskia Sassen (1984, in Parreñas, 2001), the feminization of migration is structurally linked to the capitalist system, and the need for female wage labourers from the developing world is part of the globalization process.

Singapore ranks 5th on the United Nations Human Development Index and has the 3rd highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (UNDP, 2017). However, the life of FDWs in Singapore is precarious as they are vulnerable to various forms of discrimination, abuse and exploitation (Wassels, Ong and Daniel, 2017. This vulnerability is linked to a lack of legal protection and adequate work regulations (such as regulated working hours), as well as due to the structure of their employment conditions, i.e. living-in with their employer. Their status as women and as migrants also exacerbates their vulnerability (Lim and Oishi, 1996, cited in Yeoh, Huang and III, 1999). For example, it is the potential employer that applies for the work permit for the domestic worker, which gives the workers less negotiating power in 7

terms of employment conditions and fair treatment (Wassels, Ong and Daniel, 2017). Also, migrant domestic workers are not covered under the general labour laws in Singapore, but under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (MOM, 2009). This politically enforced distinction between the native and the foreign worker creates new racial dynamics, where some workers are free, but can be exploited, whereas others are dependent and expropriated (Fraser, 2016). Nancy Fraser (2016) argues that this racialized dependent labour is inseparable from global capitalism.

Since the 1990s, FDWs’ rights have been changing due to advocacy efforts by various actors (Lyons, 2005). Currently, the rights of FDWs are on the priority agenda of multilateral agencies. In fact, in 2011, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted the Domestic Workers Convention (No.189) concerning decent work for domestic workers. However, so far only 24 countries have ratified the convention, meaning that domestic workers worldwide remain one of the most vulnerable working groups (ILO, 2013). The ILO strategy (2011b) on creating fair labour conditions for domestic workers (including migrant domestic workers), recognizes the prominent role of advocacy and mobilizing in negotiating changes in national laws and policies (2011b). Despite being one of the top host countries for FDWs, Singapore has not ratified the Domestic Workers Convention (ILO, 2011a), leaving employment unregulated and precarious. Research (i.e. TWC2, 2015) confirms a long-standing prevalence of labour exploitation, including: excessive working days and no time off work. To oppose this unfair treatment, various groups have mobilized at the national and transnational levels, including trade unions, faith-based organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Research Question

In this dissertation I aim to examine the strategies and initiatives undertaken by the NGOs to address the rights and interests of the migrant domestic workers in Singapore. Therefore, the main research question that I will seek to answer in the proposed dissertation is: How do the social movements working for the rights of FDWs in Singapore operate to negotiate workers labour rights?

Although I acknowledge the role and importance of the advocacy by the trade unions, and other non- state actors, I narrow down my analysis to only one type of actors in the social movements - NGOs. My research question analyses how the leading NGOs for migrant workers’ rights in Singapore operate to negotiate the labour rights of FDWs. Also, I aim to form an understanding of the key perceptions of migrant domestic workers, as defined by the advocacy groups. The organizations I am looking at are Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) and Humanitarian Organization for Migration (HOME). I have picked these organisations because (i) they are the most active proponents in advocating for the rights of migrant domestic workers, (ii) the key issues they focus on as organisations incorporate labour rights, and (iii) the impact of their work is substantial due to their collaboration within and across sectors, including government, international organisations and academia. In the conceptual framework, I provide a more extensive profile of the organisations. 8

This research argues that the two studied organisations draw from three dominant discourses on victimhood, civic society and rights. Further, by circulating these diversified framings, the two studied organisations build contrasting images of the foreign domestic workers in their advocacy in order to appeal to different target groups.

Chapter 2. Methodology

Data Collection and Evidence

To find out how the social movements operate to negotiate FDWs' rights, I am going to use both secondary and primary data. I establish key concepts through a secondary literature review. I will especially look at the work of Mario Diani and Donatella Della Porta (2006) and Snow, Soule and Kriesi (2004) on conceptualizing social movements; and at the work of Snow (2004) on framing movement processes and discourses. I will also turn to the literature on social movements of migrant workers and on migrant domestic workers’ in Singapore and beyond to situate the case study within the framework. I am operationalizing these theories because the advocacy efforts on behalf of FDWs have been well- situated within the social movements theory by a number of scholars (see i.e. Piper, 2015; Lyons 2007), who engage with the research on FDWs’ rights. It has been evidenced that the key actors advocating on behalf FDWs have been using social movements strategies to advance migrant workers’ rights in the sending and receiving countries (i.e. Piper, 2015). To portray the context in which the movements have formed, I provide background to the policy environment surrounding the rights of FDWs in Singapore. Finally, as I situate TWC2 and HOME as part of social movements working for FDWs’ rights, I elaborate on their organisational goals.

Having had the main concepts established, I then move on to situate advocacy practices by TWC2 and HOME within this framework. To illustrate the operations of the movement, I am using idiographic case studies (Levy, 2008) of the two mentioned non-governmental organizations: HOME and TWC2. The goal of idiographic case studies is to “describe, explain, interpret and/or understand a single case” (Levy, 2008, p.4). The analysis will be based on the following materials:

a) Organisational statements, as on the website of TWC2 and HOME; b) Visual materials such as pictures and posters used for the mandatory day off advocacy; c) Online articles released by TWC2 and HOME on their, or their partners’, websites; d) Day off campaign statement by the partnering organisation UNIFEM Singapore1; e) Statement by the TWC2 president, John Gee, at the forum organised by students at National University of Singapore in 2007;

1United Nations Development Fund for Women National Committee Singapore, previously called UNIFEM, now UN Women Singapore Committee. In this dissertation, referred to as UNIFEM.

f) Official shadow reports submitted by HOME in 2011, and by HOME and TWC2 in 2017, to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Data Analysis

Through the literature review and the analysis of the primary data, I investigate how social movements working for the foreign domestic workers in Singapore operate. I form an in-depth understanding of the formation and operations of social movements through a number of guiding sub-questions:

• What was the political context and opportunity for the movements to form? • Who are the main actors in the movement and what role do they play? • What were/are the objectives the movement wants to achieve and is advocating for? How are they being framed and communicated? • How does the movement collaborate with outside entities? • How are the foreign domestic workers portrayed by TWC2 and HOME within different discourses? • What were the mobilization strategies used by the movement? What were the collective action frames?

These sub-questions are based on the social movement theories, which I explore more extensively in the conceptual framework.

The materials are analysed using discourse analysis methods. Discourse analysis can be defined as “the study of how social reality is linguistically constituted, via analyses of the interplay between texts, discourses, and wider contexts” (Della Porta, 2014, p. 4). I conduct the analysis using Fairclough’s ideas on analysing discursive practices of social movements. Many scholars researching social movements refer to his ideas, including, for example Della Porta (i.e. Fairclough 1992, 2003 cited in Della Porta, 2014). Fairclough (2003) argues for discourse analysis to be conducted at three levels: “the production of text, the text itself and the reception of the text” (p.10). As he describes, the analysis of production of the text refers to who are the authors, what are their identities and intentions, and hence how they will be interpreted by the audiences. Further, the analysis of the text itself considers wording, grammar and a composition (Ibid.). And lastly, the text reception in the wider social context, meaning the effects the text has on reproducing or challenging social practices (Fairclough, 2003, p.10; Della Porta, 2014, p.4). It is important to notice the interplay between all three levels as this is where the meanings of each discursive practice are made (Fairclough, 2003), i.e. the power relations, interests and values of authors and the receivers. Through this discourse analysis, I explore the connection between discursive practices of the two NGOs, as social movements’ actors, and the wider social practices and change. I investigate how and why do they choose certain arguments over others, and how does it make movements’ advocacy more influential. I acknowledge that this research has its limitations, as discourse analysis methods give the researcher opportunity to open interpretation of the meanings, which can be subjective, lengthy and at times confusing. 10

Through analysing texts and visuals from both organisations and with a support of secondary literature, I identify three dominant discourses on victimhood, civic society and rights. I situate the organisational statements of TWC2 and HOME within the discourses and further analyse the differences and similarities of their discursive tactics. I then narrow down the advocacy analysis exclusively to efforts for the right to the weekly day off for the foreign domestic workers. Although both organisations advocate extensively for labour rights, such broad analysis goes beyond the scope of this dissertation. Also, this focus establishes a comprehensive case study due to the length of the campaign and the variety of interwoven discourses. I analyse the dominant discourses within the sample texts as well as the visuals, as they play an important role highlighting the messages within the text. I also explore how different discourses create conflicting images of FDWs and how the two organizations collaborate with each other and with other actors across the sectors as a part of their strategies.

Chapter 3. Conceptual Framework

Social movements

Social movements emerge when traditional norms, or the business-as-usual, are no longer satisfactory and individuals are driven to challenge them (Diani and Della Porta, 2006). Social movements are an important entity through which people can express their concerns regarding particular issues that often intersect and magnify one another. Different scholars emphasize different aspects when conceptualising social movements. More particularly, Diani and Della Porta (2006) define a social movement as a “social process, consisting of mechanisms through which actors engage in a collective action” (p. 20). Snow, Soule and Kriesi (2004) also agree that the essence of a social movement is a collective action, and they argue that it happens outside of institutional channels which can relate to, for example, the use of public spaces for marches or protests. A social movement, by definition, needs a collective goal that people act together on. This goal can aim at a broader change or can be narrowed down to amending one policy, for example.

Diani and Della Porta (2006) distinguish between mechanisms that establish social movements such as (i) being involved in conflictual relations with defined opponents, (ii) being linked by some sort of informal networks, and (iii) sharing a collective identity. The conflictual relation they refer to is a relationship between two actors who want to control the same stake but have opposing interests. For example, in the context of the global governance of migration, the sending and receiving states have mostly focused on migration for the economic benefits of the states, and hence have shaped formal policies to control migration and employment flows but have failed to entail human rights for the migrant workers (Piper, 2015). Further, social movements need to have some degree of organisation (Snow, Soule and Kriesi, 2004). There is a slight disparity between the scholars in what they mean by coordinating within a social movement, as some view this as the existence of “formal organisations,” some as an “organisation of collective action”, and some as the existence of “connective networks” (Turrow in Snow, Soule and Kresi, 2004, p.10). The latter one fits into Diani’s and Della Porta’s description of 11

informal networks. However, there is a shared agreement amongst scholars that social movements require some level of organizing, which involves different actors.

And finally, the collective identity the authors mention refers to the “sense of shared purpose and shared commitment to a cause” (Diani and Della Porta, 2006, p.22). This common purpose of the movements is actively being crafted by the social movement leaders so that it passes a certain meaning of events, ideas and beliefs. They frame the collective cause in order to mobilize supporters and potential allies, as well as to demobilize antagonists (Snow and Benford, 1988, in Snow, 2004). This activity is recognised by scholars as “collective action frames”. The main role of these frames is to convey a message so as to articulate a particular idea – only that idea and no others, so that this particular idea becomes the dominant narrative. Frames can also have a transformative function, as they can transform routine grievances into a cause for mobilization in the context of collective action (Snow, 2004, p.384). As Snow (2004) continues to argue, framing grievances in one way, rather the other, is not only about describing the issue, but it is also meant as a call for action to challenge the existing framings of reality (p. 385).

Social movements operating for migrant workers’ rights International Organisation for Migration (IOM) defines a migrant as “any person moving across an international border or within a State away from their habitual place of residence”, regardless of person’s legal status, voluntary or involuntary movement, reasons for migrating and length of the stay (2018). Further, migrant worker is defined as “a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national” (OHCHR, 2005).

Social movements operating for migrants’ rights are situated within a global justice movement, which is believed to consist initiatives and organisations working on opposing neoliberal globalisation, and reducing emerging inequalities (Diani and Della Porta, 2006). These particular movements can be classified as so called new social movements that have emerged around the 1960s. Their advocacy includes issues beyond the class struggle (which was centric to social movements before), and touches upon new dimensions, such as gender issues and women’s participation in the workforce (Diani and Della Porta, 2006, p.6). Mobilization over migration usually addresses two main fields: the regulation of migration flows or the situation of migrants in the receiving country (Eggert and Giugni, 2015). Migrant workers’ movements in Singapore belong to the latter as they advocate for issues such as labour rights, as well as social, cultural and political rights. The key actors in the global migrant workers rights’ movement are trade unions and non-governmental organisations (Piper, 2015). Trade unions have been historically anti-immigration and their way of organising was not inclusive of migrant and gender issues (Piper, 2009). A challenge for the trade unions was the temporary and often unregulated nature of migrant workers’ stay, and the resulting inability to engage in persistent, long-term activism, which is crucial to achieve the common objective of the movements (Snow, Soule and Kriesi, 2004).

Piper (2009) argues that migrant workers’ organisations and NGOs have stepped up to fill in the gap in non-union labour organising, both globally and in Singapore. Although not all are primarily involved with migration issues, they have put migrants’ rights on their agenda. She recognises the following types of organisations: migrant labour organisations (run by migrant workers themselves); NGOs involved in migrant labour issues (run by citizens); faith-based organizations; worker/labour NGOs; women’s rights and human rights organisations (Piper, 2009, p.259-260). TWC2 and HOME can be classified as the NGOs involved in migrant labour issues run by citizens2. These two organizations, their networks and other individuals are all linked and create the informal networks that the social movements theories refer to (Diani and Della Porta, 2006, p.21). Organizing can also be transnational in nature. This may include local citizens campaigning on behalf of migrants, migrants campaigning on their own or on behalf of all migrants; migrants challenging government in the country of origin and destination, and activists crossing boarders to campaign on behalf of migrants (Piper, 2005).

Social movements operating for foreign domestic workers’ rights The International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Domestic Workers Convention defines domestic work as “performed in or for a household” (ILO, 2011a, p. 2). According to the ILO, a domestic worker is therefore a person employed to engage in domestic work (ILO, 2011a, p.2). Some of the domestic tasks include cleaning, cooking, washing, taking care of children and elderly, gardening, and driving for the family (ILO, 2018). If the work is performed occasionally and is not an occupation, the person is not qualified as a domestic worker (ILO, 2011a, p.2). The Convention recognises, however, that domestic workers are often migrants and/or from disadvantaged communities. In fact, nearly one in five domestic workers globally is a migrant (Galotti, 2015), and in my analysis, the term foreign domestic worker (FDW) is used interchangeably with migrant domestic worker (MDW). The Domestic Workers Convention (ILO, 2011a) outlines the legal framework for rights of FDWs. It emphasizes important principles that often serve as a base for advocacy efforts for FDWs’ rights by organisations worldwide, some of them being:

• Protection against all of forms of abuse, harassment and violence (based on Article 5), • Fair employment conditions, decent working and living conditions (based on Article 6), • Standardized employment contracts (based on Article 7), • Weekly day off (based on Article 10).

Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore – policy environment around hiring FDWs and NGO organising

Domestic work is the main occupation for migrant women in Asia (Piper and Yamanaka, 2008). However, host countries within the region have taken different approaches to recognising migrant

2 Although TWC2 has tried to involve FDWs in their events, the organisation is predominantly led by middle-class Singaporeans. HOME involves FDWs as volunteers, in i.e. their shelter, but not necessarily in the advocacy work. 13

women’s domestic work in their policies. The Government of Singapore (2013) recognizes domestic work for visa purposes and classifies it as an “unskilled” occupation. It can be a victimizing discourse that diminishes the legitimacy of the job and the agency of the worker. Meanwhile, migration has become one of the pathways to women’s economic empowerment, as women migrate to earn higher wages (Parreñas, 2001) and to secure livelihoods for their families back home (Piper and Yamanaka, 2009). On the other hand, Piper and Yamanaka (2008) argue that legal recognition of migrant women workers does not afford them or their issues recognition in the labour law, and de facto national employment laws in Singapore do not mirror the state’s “recognition” of domestic work as a form of labour. This restrains FDWs’ economic empowerment, and their socio-political rights. What is more, lives of FDWs are further restricted by the number of migration policies.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is the main body responsible for regulating policies that manage employment of migrant workers in Singapore. On their website, MOM (2018) specifies the eligibility criteria for both the domestic worker and the employer, the process of obtaining the work permit, and the guidelines for employment. In order to be eligible to become a FDW, one must be female, between 23- 50 years old at the time of application (with a possibility of permit extension until reaching 60 years old) and must have minimum 8 years of formal education. Potential FDWs also cannot be related to the employer, must come from an approved country of origin and cannot be in Singapore during the application process for the Work Permit. After arrival, she must attend a settling-in programme and pass the medical certification. She also must work at the address she is registered at and return to her country immediately either after her Work Permit expires, she gets fired, or fails a medical examination. This medical examination has to be done every 6 months and includes tests for pregnancy and infectious diseases such as HIV, syphilis, tuberculosis. Piper and Yamanaka (2008) call this periodic pregnancy testing “an extreme form of control of female bodies” (p.170). Also, the government has strict policies aimed at controlling the population size. For example, FDWs are forbidden from marrying a Singaporean citizen or permanent resident, in or outside of the country (MOM, 2018)3.

MOM (2018) also specifies that the employer must be at least 21 years old, cannot be a bankrupt and must have the mental capacity to understand their responsibility as an employer. The employer’s financial ability to maintain and upkeep a domestic worker and provide accommodation is also required. A potential employer has to pay a $5,000 bond for each migrant worker on the Work Permit they hire (with an exception for Malaysian workers). This bond is a way for the Government of Singapore to ensure that both employer and worker comply with the conditions of the permit. The bond can be withheld in case an employer does not pay the salary on time or fails to send the FDW back to their home country after the Work Permit expires. Another condition for detaining the bond is if the worker goes missing. The fear of losing the security bond leads to many employers trying to control the lives of FDWs by i.e. taking away their passports and mobile phones, withholding salaries, or controlling their whereabouts in their free time. Violation of contract terms and abuse by employers is a common reality for many migrant domestic workers (Piper and Yamanaka, 2008, p.170). Because the policies are so heavily focused on management of migrant workers, there is little inclusion of migrants’ rights. With low bargaining power,

3 MOM can however issue a special approval. 14

FDWs often find themselves in a marginalised position (Piper and Rother, 2012). This structural marginalisation permits the unfair treatment and disregard for rights of the domestic workers by their employers. As organisations began to mobilize in response to the continuous marginalisation of migrant workers, some include advocacy specifically for FDWs’ rights. Many use this marginalized position of FDWs in their statements as a base for their advocacy, which highlights FDWs’ vulnerability and victimhood.

There are some limitations to which organisations can mobilize in Singapore. People’s Action Party (PAP), which is the ruling political party, has a specified vision of the civic society which reflects the Asian values. According to the government, Singaporean citizens should be actively providing feedback and participating in implementing solutions to social issues, all of this within state-sanctioned frameworks (Lyons, 2005, p.209). As Chua (2000) argues, this vision of society underlines the civic responsibility of citizens as opposed to the rights of citizenship (as understood in the concept of civil society). Values promoted by the state, such as civility, kindness, and public orderliness (Lee, 2002, p.99), are being reinforced through vaguely defined “out-of-bound markers” (OB markers), which are issues that are too sensitive to be discussed in public for fear of disturbing public peace and order (Lyons, 2007). Because the OB markers remain undefined, citizens can influence the policy making to the extent to which PAP allows it (Leong, 2000, p. 447). Also, PAP emphasizes the power relations between Singaporean citizens and others. They see Singapore as a country that puts citizens first but welcomes those who share the values and contribute to the state (PAP, 2018). Gamson (2004) argues that political opportunities apply to the discursive opportunities, and hence to the wider social practices (p.249). As such, the government’s vision of civic society narrows the scope of the issues that NGOs can openly advocate for, and also redefines the way those issues are being framed. This is visible through practices of two leading advocacy NGOs in Singapore – HOME and TWC2.

Organisations advocating on behalf of migrant domestic workers

Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME)

HOME is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) founded in 2004 in Singapore (HOME, 2018). The organisation was found by Bridget Lew, who was associated with the Catholic Church’s ministry for migrant workers in Singapore. The organisation has less than 20 members, whose role is to provide financial and moral support to the activities (Lyons, 2009); they do not recruit new membership. As stated on their website (HOME, 2018), HOME aims to empower and support migrant workers who suffer abuse, exploitation and human rights violations. They do it through both “immediate crisis intervention” and a “long-term support”. The key areas of their work include:

a) Welfare: • Helpdesks offering legal advice to both domestic and non-domestic workers, and assistance in managing workers’ cases. • Shelter for domestic workers, for those who have been exploited and/or are in process of resolving cases with their employers. 15

b) Empowerment: • HOME Academy, which offers educational and vocational training specifically for FDWs. c) Advocacy: • Public education and campaigns around issues faced by migrant workers, with the goal to improve the lives of the workers living in Singapore. • Active campaigning for day off for FDWs and for a human trafficking legislation. Their past advocacy has led to important changes in laws and policies in Singapore4. d) Research on issues affecting migrant workers.

Annually, the organisation provides services to approximately 2,000 migrant workers, houses around 700 FDWs, and provides training to around 1,600 women. As Lyons (2009, p.100) mentions, HOME was linked to StarHome, a domestic worker employment agency, which was meant to be a role model in terms of fair fees, contracts and treatment of FDWs.

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2)

TWC2 is a non-governmental organisation founded in 2003 in Singapore with a goal to improve conditions for low-wage migrant workers. Before an official registration, TWC2 stood for The Working Committee 2 – a group of activists campaigning for respect and rights for migrant domestic workers (Lyons, 2005). Post registration, they have expanded their advocacy to all migrant workers. TWC2 curren tly employs a small number of regular staff and operates with a large number of volunteers. Although TWC2 acknowledges the transnational scope of the issues faced by migrant workers, they do not engage in transnational advocacy and keep the national focus. On their website (TWC2, 2011), they list the following approaches to promote fair treatment for migrant workers:

a) Advocacy and campaigns: • Engagement with policy-makers to obtain structural and legal changes, with a focus on labour rights. • Public campaigns to change societal attitudes towards the migrant workers. b) Research on issues affecting migrant workers. c) Social Worker Always There (SWAT), through which social workers and volunteers provide assistance and manage migrant workers’ cases. d) Cuff Road Food Programme, a direct outreach programme for Bangladeshi and Indian workers, where they can consult volunteers and get a free meal. e) Direct support services, i.e. financial support for injury recovery, emergency shelter and transportation to medical appointments. f) Discover Singapore initiative - field trips for migrant workers.

4The changes included amendments in Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the Employment Act, Foreign Employees Dormitory Act, and the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act (HOME, 2018). 16

Through their continuous advocacy, TWC2 has gained a lot of exposure and a high profile among other campaigning groups. Because of that, the group has faced backlash and mistrust from the government (Lyons, 2005).

Chapter 4. Social movements’ discursive analysis

The campaigning for a weekly day off for FDWs by TWC2 began in 2003, and they were soon joined by HOME in 2007. The joint-effort by the two NGOs and their partners has won a mandatory day off legislation for FDWs in 2013. Until today, NGOs continue to advocate for a proper policy implementation. The materials I am analysing are collected from the websites of TWC2 and HOME and were produced in a period between 2003 – 2017. The table below (Figure 1.) presents some of the most important characteristics of the three dominant discourses, as per Fairclough’s methodology for the discourse analysis within social movements. In the following sections, I analyse deployment of these discourses within the chosen materials.

Victimhood Discourse Civic Society Discourse Rights-Based Discourse

Text characteristics

• FDWs as a vulnerable • FDWs are productive • FDWs are workers, group individuals not maids • Maids • Bring economic prospects • Domestic work as a • Low-wage workers • Recognises contribution dignified labour • Exploited and abused of “the other” (non- • Day off is a human • Need saving citizens) right

Text production, distribution and consumption

• Distributed both online and • Distributed online through • Distributed through in public spaces organisational channels official reports and • Can directly attack the • Avoids directly documents recipient addressing or blaming the • Addresses influential • Resonates with people and government or employers actors emotions

Effect on the wider social practices

• Challenges government’s • Reproduces governmental • Both challenges the and individual practices discourses law, but reproduces • More disruptive • Careful and silent on the nationalist focus • Reproduces power relations many issues and practices • Global context between FDWs and • Reproduces class division translated into local employers • Reproduces gender and class division Figure 1. Key features of the advocacy discourses used by the TWC2 and HOME. 17

Victimhood Discourse

Victimhood Discourse, as per Table 1, focuses on presenting FDWs as victims, who are vulnerable to multiple oppressions. The key advocacy arguments within this discourse evolve around treating FDWs with respect and dignity. The arguments are targeted, both, at an individual level, i.e. at abusive employers, and at the structural level, i.e. at policies that allow the domestic workers to find themselves in that vulnerable position. Both TWC2 and HOME draw from the victimhood discourse within their materials, which portrays FDWs as powerless and which furthers their subjugation. TWC2 employs this discourse more frequently and with less appropriation than HOME.

TWC2 – early organising and organisational statement

TWC2 in particular constructs a discourse which portrays FDW’s as victims. The organisation was found after a concerned group of citizens got together following the death of a young Indonesian domestic worker, who was brutally assaulted by her employer (Lyons, 2005, p.220). For the first year of its operations (2003-4), TWC2 was not officially registered as NGO, which was a conscious tactic of its founders to alternate the “traditional” civil society activism (Lyons, 2005, p.242). Throughout this initial year, the group of loosely affiliated activists operated for a collective goal of encouraging people to “respect” the rights of maids, under a slogan “dignity overdue”5 (Lyons, 2005). For example, TWC2 states that: “all labour is dignified and should be treated with respect and consideration” (TWC2, 2011). I see this encouraging use of the discourse having a dual impact: on one hand, TWC2 focused on the education of employers, which is beneficial for the attitude change; on the other hand, they assigned a certain power to employers - the power to respect, or not to respect, the rights of workers. Emphasizing FWDs’ inferiority is the essence of the victimhood discourse.

These power relations are also circulated within the organisational statement on TWC2’s website. It outlines the vulnerable position of all low-wage migrant workers, including FDWs. It goes into detail about what makes migrant workers the victims by using multiple phrases with negative connotations, for example: low wages, long working hours, no time off, poor accommodation and unpaid salaries (TWC2, 2011b). Also, by highlighting FDWs’ status as “low-wage workers” and “migrants” (Ibid.), authors mark the clear class division between the Singaporeans, and the “others”. This division reflects TWC2’s collective identity of middle-class, Singaporean citizens, who are themselves employers of low-wage domestic workers (Lyons, 2009). The class position of TWC2’s members impacts the nature of their advocacy – by speaking on behalf of FDWs, they further magnify the employer-employee power relations. Going further, they claim to put issues of “ethnicity, colour, gender, language, religion or class” aside, as they “should be” irrelevant when it comes to treating others with dignity (Ibid.). This rather romanticized framing of reality translates into the issues that they prioritise, or not, within the movement. For instance, they operate without tackling the issue of class or citizenship, with FDWs being victims, workers, aliens and a passive client group of the organisation (Lyons, 2005). TWC2 ensures that all website visitors will pay attention to the vulnerable position of migrant workers, rather than, for example,

5 Slogan “Dignity Overdue” is used by TWC2 until today, i.e. it is displayed on the homepage of their website (TWC2, 2014). 18

the reasons behind this abuse against the workers, or the abusers themselves. The organisation (TWC2, 2011b) refers to the migrant workers as the ones who are doing “the dirty and dangerous jobs” and they experience “unconscionable exploitation” and “fatigue”. They have no control over living conditions, which are described as “substandard facilities” and “poor accommodation”. In response to the lack of agency of FDWs, TWC2 organises on behalf of FDWs to ensure “dignity” and “protection” (TWC2, 2011a). The organisation takes almost a saviour stand in their mission to make “exploitation, abuse and injustice become history” (Ibid). This form representation of FDWs by concerned citizens is described by Spivak as speaking on behalf a generalised subaltern subject (Spivak, 2015, p. 84). By organising on behalf of the FDWs, TWC2 continues the First World practice of appropriating the Third World and its citizens as an “Other” (Spivak, 2015, p.84).

Day Off Campaign

As opposed to its “encouraging” function, victimhood discourse can also be used in a more confronting manner. In 2008, TWC2 and HOME have cooperated with UNIFEM Singapore on the day off campaign. UNIFEM has helped to arrange for the campaign posters to be redistributed in the public transportation. The posters displayed: “Domestic work is not slavery, give your maid a day off” (Koh et al., 2016, p.26). Using the word “slavery” was especially confronting to the public, as it was opposing national values of kindness and graciousness. It was also directly addressing the FDWs’ employers with pronoun “your”. This is not the only time that the organisations compare treatment of FDWs to slavery, but because the message was redistributed in a public space, such as transportation, it had a wider reach and was directly reaching the target audience (i.e. FDWs’ employers getting to work). Those posters were challenging the national values and shedding a light on what happens within the private households. This caused a backlash from the government towards NGOs, the posters were removed, and the organisations were banned from displaying any other material. During that time, TWC2 and HOME activists, together with partner organisations, reached out specifically to students and youth. By deciding on this form of redistribution, they have connected with an influential and more open-minded public, with a hope of them going back to their households and passing on the message to their parents (Koh et al., 2016). 19

On the other hand, similar materials redistributed online through organisations’ websites draw much less public attention. For example, HOME released a statement on their website to advocate for a proper execution of the weekly day off legislation. The title goes: “A Worker, Not a Slave: Domestic Workers Still Denied Weekly Rest Days” (HOME, 2017). The message is reinforced by opposing worker with the slave, where the ‘worker’ is adding more credibility and agency to a FDW, and a ‘slave’ could be interpreted as taking that agency away. This statement is magnified by a picture (Figure 2) of a concerned domestic worker with a sign “I need rest days” (HOME, 2017). This victimhood discourse calls for empathy to the public as it illustrates what really the “migrant’s rights” mean. Framing ideas Figure 2. "I need rest days" photo on HOME's website (HOME, 2018). within this discourse resonates more with people and helps narrowing down the message to achieve one particular change: giving a day off to domestic workers. Aside from the strong title and complimentary image, HOME remains careful and appropriate in their statements. In the statement, author uses data to illustrate the violation of the day off policy, critiques its formulation and provides examples of abuse basing on the cases that HOME manages. This is a more appropriated use of the discourse.

TWC2, however, applies the victimhood discourse more boldly. In 2009, John Gee, TWC2’s president at the time, released a blog post, which was then redistributed by Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE, 2009). He talks about new posters by the organisation that directly address the employers (Figure 3). With the following slogan: “She’s not just your maid. Her name is Lita. She works for her family, as well as yours”, as he describes, they “invite empathy” (Ibid.). The poster shows a domestic worker caring for her own family and for the employer. In a wider social context, this also emphasizes the responsibility laying on the shoulders of FDW and contradicts common excuses of employers who do not give days off because they Figure 3. "She's not just your maid. Her name is Lita." Poster prepared for the Day Off campaign in worry about FDWs’ being irresponsible and falling cooperation between TWC2, HOME and UNIFEM NC Singapore (AWARE, 2009). into bad company (AWARE, 2009). Gee argues how 20

valuable is having the time off for working Singaporeans, and opposes that to the FDWs, who do not get that benefit. In a very direct way, he shames employers who cannot be persuaded to give time off, by referring to them as “those who simply find it too convenient to have someone waiting on them at all hours, and maybe they will only change their ways when they have no choice”. He again calls for a “humane” treatment, using words filled with negative repercussions, such as “depressed”, “dispirited”, “vulnerable” (AWARE, 2009). The whole text leaves the reader feeling emotional and confused due to its chaotic structure – multiple one-sentence paragraphs, followed by longer ones; very long sentences (i.e. 54 words), followed by a short one (i.e. 13 words). There is also a number of passive aggressive rhetorical questions, such as: “If a person just works every day, what is the point of life?”, “Everyone needs time off work? Of course, they do: what is there to explain?” (AWARE, 2009). Gee applies the victimhood discourse to spark a sense of guilt in employers through emotional and aggressive advocacy. He takes advantage of the reading audience – perhaps women who follow the organisational page for news on women’s rights, and therefore he speaks to values such as family, care and respect. The victimhood discourse is also visibly drawing from the gendered nature of the domestic work. FDWs are being victimised partially because they are women, who have been socialised to play a stereotypically feminine, subordinate roles (Vaughan-Evans and Wood, 1989). Their status as low-wage workers and non-citizens also feeds into the gendered and racialised discourses of the Third World women victims (Oyewumi, 2002). Although TWC2 still has to self-regulate their activities in order to not damage their relationship with the government, they seem to use more disruptive framings within the victimhood discourse. In the next chapter, I talk more about these self-regulating tactics that are applied to follow the state’s vision of Singaporean society.

Civic Society Discourse

Civic society discourse reflects a society envisioned by the People’s Action Party (PAP), on which I have elaborated in Chapter 3.3.

TWC2 - organisational statement

The mission and vision statement of TWC2 has strong foundations in the victimhood discourse. However, it also intertwines with the civic society discourse. Like every NGO in Singapore, TWC2 has to self-regulate their initiatives and alight with PAP’s priorities. In the organisational cause statement, TWC2 uses passive voice as a technique to distract the reader from who/what is a driving force behind the vulnerable position of migrant workers. For example, the statement relating to labour rights violations says: “migrant workers are commonly exploited by, i.e. poor accommodation or unpaid salaries” (TWC2, 2011b). However, it does not specify who is responsible for this and in what way. This way of framing the FDWs’ issues reproduces government’s vision of the graceful society, as it avoids openly challenging officials to standardize the contracts of FDWs. It also does not dispute the Singaporean citizens directly for their abuse towards FDWs. They stand up for FDWs’ wellbeing in line with PAP’s vision of welcoming those who contribute to the state by pointing out that: “migrant workers on Work Permits contribute immensely to Singapore society and our economy” (Ibid.). This vision of society that 21

recognizes the contribution of “the other” (non-citizens) is the reflection of the PAP’s vision. This discourse reflects the advocacy that TWC2 practices – through providing quiet feedback in meetings with officials from the Ministry of Manpower (Ibid.). For example, TWC2 conducted research finding a frequent abuse of FDWs, but chose not to publish the data, but to use it in closed meetings with stakeholders to provide feedback.

HOME - organisational statement

As opposed to TWC2, HOME builds their strategy basing mostly on the civic society discourse. Their statements on the website are well-organised and carefully framed. This careful framing, compared to TWC2, reflects HOME’s good relationship with the government. As Bridget Lew (Lyons, 2009, p.102), the founder and former president of the organisation, said that even while choosing the name for the organisation – Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics - she wanted to underline that they are humanitarian, and not political, and that they are focused on economics. By this, she wanted to ensure that they do not scare away the government and the society. The acronym “HOME” fits into the PAP’s goals of promoting Singapore as a welcoming host country, especially to expatriates. In this way, Lew and HOME itself, were useful to the government. Due to their close cooperation, the government can pride itself in working with NGOs (Lyons, 2009). HOME’s goal is to “enhance the wellbeing and future economic prospects of migrant workers’ (HOME, 2018), which goes hand in hand with the role that PAP envisions for FDWs and other Work Permit holders – to contribute to the economic development of the country. HOME’s argument therefore is to ensure wellbeing of the workers so that they can bring economic prospects. This argument goes beyond the text and translates into practice. To fulfil their organisational statement, HOME delivers vocational training to nearly 1,800 domestic workers every year through the HOME Academy program (HOME, 2018). The goal of HOME Academy is “to foster economic entrepreneurship, helping women towards a brighter, and more sustainable future” (HOME, 2018). However, while looking closer at the courses offered, they seem to support the domestic workers in developing their skills that will benefit their work in Singaporean households, such as: English, computer literacy, cooking, baking, care giving or dressmaking (HOME, 2018). I do not want to argue that these skills cannot be used beyond the job as a domestic work. For example, computer literacy skills such as Internet usage can improve access to information and empower FDWs about their rights. Nonetheless, it seems like the HOME Academy program makes PAP’s vision of migrant workers contributing to their economic growth a reality. As Lyons and Yee (2009) argue, they assist PAP in training FDWs into “industrious employees” (p. 585).

Day Off Campaign

“The campaign of the day off has taken ten years. Ten years, honey!”

Ummai Ummairoh, President of the Indonesian Family Network (Wee, 2016)

Between 2003-2013, TWC2 has been campaigning for a legislation on the day off for migrant domestic workers. In 2012, Tan Chuan-Jin, a former Minister of State for Manpower announced a weekly rest day 22

policy, which came into force on 1st of January 2013. With the strict state control towards NGOs, TWC2 had to be strategic about how they frame messages ensuring they do not directly challenge the authority. When TWC2 operated as an informal group, they have focused on the public education campaign, and restrained from lobbying per se. Their advocacy was often informal, i.e. through closed-doors meetings and dialogues with stakeholders and was focused on securing the humane treatment of FDWs through appropriate legislation (Lyons, 2005). This type of quiet engagement continued after TWC2’s official registration as NGO. This tactic is well-aligned with the PAP’s vision of civic society actively participating in creating social solutions within the predefined framework.

Yee and Lyons (2009) argue that the joint day off campaign by TWC2, HOME and UNIFEM was framed in a way that FDWs deserve a day off because their free time contributes to the economic benefits of the host country. This is emphasized in an annual UNIFEM report (2008), where they frame giving a day off as a mean “to improve the working relationship between employer and employee”, and to boost “morale and productivity” (p.3). By productivity, they mean that FDWs “use their free time to learn new skills and acquire knowledge” (Ibid.). They top it with a statement that FDWs are “productive individuals”, who make “extremely valuable contribution to Singaporean society” (Ibid.). This framing presents FDWs as empowered and productive workers, as opposed to the low-waged workers, who are victims (as per victimhood discourse). This framing is also in line with aforementioned HOME’s organisational goal of ensuring wellbeing of FDWs so that they can bring economic prosperity. Here we can observe the links between the civic society discourse and the neoliberal ideas on human capital, where all spheres of life are turned into economic ones (Brown, 2016). There could be a few reasons for this change in the framing by the organisations.

First of all, organisations had to find new ways to frame the issue. John Gee (Koh et al., 2016, p.25) mentioned in an interview that it was a challenge to keep the agenda of the day off alive for such a long time with the same calls. As the three organisations joined efforts, it was the most intense advocacy period and hence the message had to be reinvented. Secondly, their partnership with UNIFEM Singapore has opened new perspectives on framing the argument. Saleemah Ismail, president of UNIFEM Singapore at the time, has argued for the campaign to illustrate migrant’s rights in a way that applies to the daily lives of Singaporeans. She found “the rights’ argument” too big and not very appealing to the public (Koh et al., 2016, p.25). This framing of the “productive domestic worker” was redistributed through local media, Day Off campaign website, influential bloggers and online communities. The goal was to educate the public and convince employers of the importance of the weekly day off. The narrow focus of the campaign had an impact on tactics taken by the movement. For example, when the posters created for the campaign were removed from public transportation under the officials’ order, the three organisations chose not to expose, and hence embarrass, the authorities for censorship (Koh et al., 2016). They chose to stick to one embarrass the target tactic, although commonly applied by many social movements (see i.e. Gamson, 2004), could distract the public from the goal of the campaign and also sabotage their relationship with the state. Therefore, remaining silent on chosen issues conforms with the civic society discourse. As the above analysis indicates, both NGOs clearly align their discourses and 23

hence practices with the government’s guidelines. However, they also acquire new ideas from the transnational discourses.

Rights-Based Discourse

Rights-Based Discourse is based on the transnational discourses on labour rights as outlined in the Domestic Workers Convention (ILO, 2011a), which I have described in the conceptual framework.

In Asia Pacific, one of the most prominent regional organisations promoting human rights of migrant workers and setting regional strategies is Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA). HOME has joined MFA in 2006, and TWC2 in 2007, and ever since, both organisations have been more engaged in forming transnational alliances and, as a result, in drawing from their ideas and discourses (Lyons, 2009).

Domestic Workers, not maids

One of the key shifts in discourse for both of the organisations was to change the naming from “maids” to “domestic workers”. This framing recognises domestic work as a dignified profession and moves away from the class and gender division, which pictures domestic workers as subordinates or victims (Lyons, 2009). As Lyons (2009) argues, applying this strategy was a result of engagement with transnational advocacy and migrant worker NGOs abroad and hence translating their ideas into the local context (p.107). As such, the visual materials redistributed by the organisations followed that framing. For example, the picture (Figure 4) of the domestic worker walking away from the cleaning equipment has been attached to the press releases by TWC2 (2012). The Figure 4. "Domestic Workers need their days straight posture and a calm face paint a rather off too". Image circulated with TWC2’s press release. (TWC2, 2012). empowering picture of a FDW and show the readers that a rest day for a domestic worker is a natural practice.

The “domestic worker” framing also enables shaping a further argument. For example, John Gee (TWC2, 2007), spoke about the importance of the “day off for all” at a forum organised by students at National University of Singapore. By recognising domestic workers as workers, he was able to shape his argument around the importance of the time off for everyone, i.e. all workers. He builds his speech on the global practice of having a weekly day off for all paid workers and narrows it down to FDWs, who are often an exception. He refers to the rights discourse by comparing the local context to “almost all developed countries”, where day off, for both local and foreign workers, is legislated in the law. By the end of the speech, he again emphasizes that FDWs “need a regular day off like everyone else” as he describes the activities that all people need to do such as relaxing, meeting friends or eating together (TWC2, 2007). 24

Considering that he is addressing students and perhaps academics, he does not need to only focus on illustrating the rights of the workers in a way that will speak to their conscience. He can instead refer to international perspectives, human rights and standards embedded in the developed world. In the end, he appeals to the audience to become a country where every working person has a weekly day off as “a recognised and implemented right” (TWC, 2007). This way of framing the right to weekly day off was part of the continuous advocacy to by TWC2 in the next consecutive years. In the earlier-mentioned press release on AWARE’s website (2009), John Gee again talks about how all workers spend their free weekends, compared to the migrant domestic workers by saying: “it is another story for domestic workers” (AWARE, 2009). “The day off for all” framing fits well within the rights discourse as it translates universality of human rights into the applicability of the weekly day off for all. However, the rights approach is interwoven in a subtle way, so that it does not attack citizens or the government for not obeying human rights of FDWs. It rather locates the lack of local rights for migrant domestic workers within the global practices and it can resonate better with politically aware students and academics, who are potential allies to the movement. This framing also contradicts the argument in support of the victimhood discourse usage by UNIFEM’s president, who found advocating for rights too strong and ineffective (Koh et al., 2016, p.25). Further, it is a framing that FDWs’ themselves refer to. For example, in the title of this dissertation, I quote a statement from an open letter to FDWs’ employers by a domestic worker called Bhing, where she asks for treating the FDWs the same way as other humans (The Online Citizen, 2017).

Cooperation with multilateral agencies

Another mean of advocacy is through strategic partnerships with other actors within the movement. HOME, often jointly with TWC2, have been regularly submitting shadow reports outlining discrimination and human rights violations faced by FDWs in Singapore to different multilateral agencies, such as UNIFEM Singapore or United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In the shadow report submitted to CEDAW in 2011, HOME reports that Singapore does not meet the equality and non-discrimination standards of the CEDAW Convention because domestic workers are not recognised under national labour laws, which would otherwise protect them from long hours of work, lack of food, leave or rest days (HOME, 2011). HOME takes an opportunity to emphasize the negative impact of lack of mandatory days off throughout different part of the document. They mention it can influence:

• FDWs’ ability to participate in trade unions activities, • FDWs’ wellbeing and health of FDWs, • FDWs’ ability to access education and cultural life (HOME, 2011, p.5-7).

By consistently highlighting the impacts of the unlegislated mandatory day off throughout different parts of the document, HOME sends a clear message to the United Nations officials – to advocate for changes in the legislation to the Government of Singapore. They use concise and official language as they advocate for “basic rights and fundamental freedom” (HOME, 2011, p.11). As it is an official document directed to the UN officials, they operate the rights-based approach confidently. This confidence also 25

reflects HOME’s good relationship with the government, and the organisational know-how to operate within this discourse and yet remain appropriate. They provide recommendation to include FDWs “under the Employment Act or separate legislation, which provides full and equal protection with other low wage workers so that basic workers’ rights such as a weekly day off […] are accorded to them” (HOME, 2011, p.11). This brings out two conclusions. First, HOME is trying to find new solutions to legally support FDWs since the efforts to include them in the Employment Act continues to fail. And second, HOME remains blind to the class division that this solution implies. One of the key suggestions that Lyons (2009) puts forward is that for HOME to build transnational solidarity, which draws from the rights-based approach, its members should reflect upon their own class location within the global capitalist system. The middle-class Singaporeans, who have found and are now leading the NGO, are consumers of poorer women’s labour (Ibid., p.104). HOME’s connection to an employment agency is also a significant factor when it comes to the advocacy for rights. On one hand, it is because it supports the fair employment practices that the agency wants to be role-modelling, and on the other, it represents HOME’s economic interest in hiring migrant women, as the agency partially funds the NGO’s activities.

Four years after the mandatory day off policy was introduced, HOME and TWC2 jointly submitted a shadow report to CEDAW (HOME and TWC2, 2017), where they together draw from the rights-based discourse. Through this report, they submit a strong critique of the current policy highlighting the loopholes in the terminology used. In providing recommendations, they are very thorough, confident and official, by, for example, providing numerical data to support their critique, using imperative voice, and by namely directing their recommendation statements to the “government” and “employers” (HOME and TWC2, 2017, p.17). As I outlined in the conceptual framework, this persistent advocacy is essential to achieve the social movements’ goals. In this collective framing, the two NGOs aim to mobilize support from multilateral agencies. Although TWC2 and HOME may have naturally drawn from the transnational labour rights ideas, it also shows the continuous organisational focus on national, rather than on transnational, issues. Thus, applying the international rights-based discourse does not necessarily imply advocating beyond the state border and/or for transnational issues.

Conclusions

This paper set out to explore how social movements operate to negotiate rights for migrant domestic workers in Singapore. The research question that guided this research was: how do the social movements working for the rights of FDWS in Singapore operate to negotiate workers labour rights? To answer my research question, I used the social movements’ framework and a discourse analysis to build a case study on two of the leading advocacy organisations in the country, TWC2 and HOME. Through this method, and with the support of secondary literature, I was able to study the interwoven discourses within the organisational statements and the materials distributed as part of their advocacy for the weekly day off. I have argued that the two studied organisations draw from three dominant discourses on victimhood, civic society and rights. I have defined characteristics of each discourse, the circumstances they arise from and the impact they have on wider social practices. As in Fairclough’s (2003) perspective, we can 26

observe how the ideas circulated by the social movements, build on the wider available discourses and political opportunities, and how the actors within the movement, here the NGOs, either challenge or reproduce them. Moreover, as the discourses intertwine and complement one another, it is often difficult to clearly differentiate between their use.

The main findings of this research show how TWC2 and HOME create various, often opposing, images of FDWs through the application and combination of different discourses in order to appeal to different target groups. Within the victimhood discourse, FDWs are referred to as a group of vulnerable women, victims deprived of agency. This framing also reveals the gendered nature of the issues that FDWs face. Within the civil society discourse, FDWs are referred to as individuals, they are portrayed as productive members of the society, whom, when given a rest, will bring even more economic benefits to the country. And, within the rights-based discourse, they are part of a wider group of all working people. Here, they are referred to as humans, and like all humans they should be able to enjoy their rights. Although the framing of FDW through rights-based discourse brings in the most just perspective, each of these framings have played an important part in the process of negotiation for the rights of FDW. It is also relevant to mention that different discourses are used depending on the addressed audience. For example, the victimhood discourse appeals to employers’ humanity and calls for a dignified treatment of FDWs. On the other hand, the civic society discourse ensures an alignment with the People Action Party’s neoliberal ideas on migrant workers as productive contributors to the economy.

Overall, TWC2 and HOME have played a crucial role in negotiating rights, including labour rights, for FDWs in Singapore and in liaising with different stakeholders (i.e. UNIFEM Singapore, CEDAW). As I have demonstrated, the NGOs operate through the same discourses, but the way they apply them can be different. For example, HOME remains more diplomatic and appropriate, and hence has built a good relationship with the government, which further gives them far more confidence in advocacy practice. TWC2, on the other hand, remains more disruptive, which results in a mistrust from the government, and sometimes limits the scope and effectiveness of their advocacy. Moreover, both NGOs manifest similar attitudes when it comes to their focus on national issues and advocacy within the state, rather than transnationally. Also, within all three discourses, both NGOs employ a discourse based on the class division between the migrant domestic workers and the middle-class employers, who in fact rely on their low-wage labour. The focus on national issues and the class division magnify and sustain one another. These approaches are well-aligned with the state’s vision of the Singaporean society, which, as the analysis showed, continues to be one of the biggest obstacles limiting the NGOs’ advocacy. However, TWC2 and HOME apply “quiet” and diversified techniques, such as the “domestic worker” framing, that subtly challenge the existing practices, and influence social and policy change in the long-term. To further challenge the neoliberal discourses of the government, and essential motions on women as victims, and to fully embrace the rights-based advocacy, organisations need to reflect and recognise their own position within the global capitalist system and strongly entail the complex issues of class, gender and citizenship into their advocacy.

References

Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), (2009) ‘Everyone Needs a Day Off’, AWARE, 2 December. Available at: https://www.aware.org.sg/2009/12/everyone-needs- a-day-off/ (Accessed: 15 August 2018).

Brown, W. (2016) ‘Sacrificial Citizenship: Neoliberalism, Human Capital, and Austerity Politics’, Constellations, 23(1), pp.3-14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12166 (Accessed: 25 August 2018).

Chua, B.H. (2000) ‘The Relative Autonomies of the State and Civil Society’ in Koh, G. and Ooi, G.L. State Society Relations in Singapore. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies and Oxford University Press.

Della Porta, D. (2014) Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Diani, M. and Della Porta, D. (2006) Social Movements: An Introduction. ProQuest Ebook Central. [eBook reader]. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com (Accessed:15 May 2018).

Eggert, N. and Giugni, M. (2015) ‘Migration and Social Movements’ in: Della Porta. D. and Diani, M. The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. Cary: Oxford University Pres. pp.159- 172.

Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Routledge.

Fraser, N. (2016) ‘Expropriation and Exploitation in Racialized Capitalism: A Reply to Michael Dawson’, Critical Historical Studies, 3(1), pp.163-178.

Gallotti, M. (2015) Migrant Domestic Workers Across the World: global and regional estimates. Global Action Programme on Migrant Domestic Workers and Their Families. Geneva: Labour Migration Branch (MIGRANT), ILO.

Gamson, W. (2004) ‘Bystanders, Public opinion and the Media’ in Snow, D., Soule, S. and Kriesi H. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.242– 61.

Government of Singapore (2013). Do you know how many types of foreign workers we have in Singapore?, Government of Singapore, 4 March. Available at: https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/do-you-know-how-many-types-of-foreign-workers-we- have-in-singapore (Accessed: 22 May 2018).

Gündüz, Z. (2013) ‘The Feminization of Migration: Care and the New Emotional Imperialism’, Monthly Review, 65(7), p.32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-065-07-2013-11_3 (Accessed: 25 August 2018). 28

Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) (2011) Shadow Report To 49th Session Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Singapore: HOME. Available at: https://www.home.org.sg/ (Accessed: 25 August 2018).

Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) (2017) A Worker, Not a Slave: Domestic Workers Still Denied Weekly Rest Days. HOME, 30 November. Available at: https://www.home.org.sg/our-stories/2017/11/30/a-worker-not-a-slave-domestic-workers-still- denied-weekly-rest-days (Accessed 27 Aug. 2018).

Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) (2018) Available at: www.home.org.sg (Accessed:14 May 2018).

Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) and Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) (2017) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Shadow Report for Singapore. Singapore: HOME and TWC2. Available at: https://www.home.org.sg/ (Accessed: 25 August 2018).

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2011a) Convention C189 - Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). Available at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C189 (Accessed: 15 May 2018).

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2011b) ILO strategy for action towards making decent work a reality for domestic workers worldwide. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/domestic-workers/strategy/WCMS_210412/lang--en/index.htm (Accessed 16 May 2018).

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2013) Migrant domestic workers across the world: Global and regional statistics and the extent of legal protection. Geneva: ILO. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/travail/Whatsnew/WCMS_173363/lang--en/index.htm (Accessed: 14 May 2018).

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2018) Domestic workers. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/domestic-workers/lang--en/index.htm (Accessed: 14 May 2018).

International Organisation for Migration (IOM) (2017) World Migration Report 2018. Geneva: IOM. Available at: https://www.iom.int/wmr/world-migration-report-2018 (Accessed: 15 May 2018).

International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2018) Who is a migrant? Available at: https://www.iom.int/who-is-a-migrant (Accessed: 27 August 2018).

Koh, C., Goh, C., Wee, K. and Yeoh, B. (2016) The Dynamics of Policy Formulation and Implementation: A Case Study of Singapore’s Mandatory Weekly Day off Policy for Migrant 29

Domestic Workers. Migrating out of Poverty Consortium Working Paper No. 36. Brighton: University of Sussex. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs/the-dynamics-of- policy-formulation-and-implementation-a-case-study-of-singapore-s-mandatory-weekly-day- off-policy-for-migrant-domestic-workers (Accessed: 27 August 2018).

Lee, T. (2002) ‘The politics of civil society in Singapore’, Asian Studies Review, 26(1), pp.97- 117.

Leong, H. (2000) ‘Citizen Participation and Policy Making in Singapore: Conditions and Predicaments’, Asian Survey, 40(3), pp.436-455.

Levy, J.S. (2008) 'Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference', Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), p.1-18.

Lyons, L. (2005) ‘Transient Workers Count Too? The Intersection of Citizenship and Gender in Singapore´ s Civil Society’, Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 20(2), pp.208-248.

Lyons, L. (2007) ‘Dignity Overdue: Women's Rights Activism in Support of Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore’, Women’s Studies Quarterly, 3/4(35), pp.106-122.

Lyons, L. (2009) ‘Transcending the Border. Transnational Imperatives in Singapore’s Migrant Worker Rights Movement’, Critical Asian Studies, 41(1), pp.89-112.

Lyons, L. and Yee, Y. (2009) ‘Migrant Rights in Singapore. Political claims and strategies in human rights struggles in Singapore’, Critical Asian Studies, 41(4), pp.575-604.

Ministry of Manpower (MOM) (2009) Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. Singapore: The Law Revision Commission under the Authority of the Revised Edition of the Laws Act. Available at: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/EFMA1990 (Accessed: 20 July 2018).

Ministry of Manpower Singapore (MOM) (2018) Work Permit for foreign domestic worker. Available at: http://www.mom.gov.sg/passes-and-permits/work-permit-for-foreign-domestic- worker (Accessed: 10 July 2018).

Oyĕwùmí, O. (2002) ‘Conceptualizing gender: the Eurocentric foundations of feminist concepts and the challenge of African epistemologies’, JENDA: A Journal of Culture and African Women’s Studies, 2(1), pp. 1-5.

Parreñas, R. (2001) Servants of Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

People's Action Party (PAP) (2018) What we can build together. Available at: https://www.pap.org.sg/Manifesto/WHAT-WE-CAN-BUILD-TOGETHER (Accessed: 27 August 2018).

Piper, N. (2005) ‘Rights of Foreign Domestic Workers — Emergence of Transnational and Transregional Solidarity?’, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 14(1-2), pp.97-119. 30

Piper, N. (2009) ‘Political Participation and Empowerment of Foreign Women: Gendered Advocacy Labour Organising in Southeast and East Asia’, in Piper, N. (ed.) New Perspectives on Gender and Migration: Livelihood, Rights and Entitlements. New York, London: Routledge. Piper, N. (2015) ‘Democratising Migration from the Bottom Up: The Rise of the Global Migrant Rights Movement’, Globalizations, 12(5), pp.788-802. Piper, N. and Rother, S. (2012) ‘Let's Argue about Migration: advancing a right(s) discourse via communicative opportunities’, Third World Quarterly, 33(9), pp.1735-1750.

Piper, N. and Yamanaka K. (2008) ‘Feminised Migration in East and Southeast Asia and the Securing of Livelihoods’, in Piper, N. (Eds) New Perspectives on Gender and Migration: Livelihood, Rights and Entitlements. New York: Routledge. pp. 159-188.

Snow, D. (2004) ‘Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields’, in Snow, A., Soule, S. and Kriesi H. (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Snow, D., Soule, S. and Kriesi, H. (eds.) (2004) The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Spivak, G. (1994) ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in Williams, P. and Chrisman, L. (eds.). Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory. A Reader. London: Routledge, pp.66-111. Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), (2007) ‘A day off for all’, TWC2, 17 November, Available at: http://twc2.org.sg/2007/11/17/a-day-off-for-all/ (Accessed: 28 August 2018).

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), (2012) ‘Government making weekly rest day mandatory for foreign domestic workers a progressive move’, TWC2, 5 March. Available at: http://twc2.org.sg/2012/03/05/government-making-weekly-rest-day-mandatory-for-foreign- domestic-workers-a-progressive-move (Accessed: 28 August 2018).

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), (2015) ‘The Right to Rest. The effectiveness of the ‘day off’ legislation for foreign domestic workers’, TWC2, 11 June. Available at: http://twc2.org.sg/2015/06/11/the-right-to-rest-the-effectiveness-of-the-day-off-legislation-for- foreign-domestic-workers (Accessed: 27 August 2018).

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) (2011a) Vision & Mission | Transient Workers Count Too. Available at: http://twc2.org.sg/who-we-are/vision-mission/ (Accessed: 27 August 2018)

Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) (2011b) The Cause | Transient Workers Count Too. Available at: http://twc2.org.sg/who-we-are/cause/ (Accessed: 27 August 2018).

The Online Citizen, (2017) ‘A Foreign Domestic Worker’s Open Letter to Her Employer: What Your Helper Wants you to Know’, The Online Citizen, 29 September. Available at: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/09/29/a-foreign-domestic-workers-open-letter-to-her- employer-what-your-helper-wants-you-to-know/ (Accessed: 27 August 2018). 31

United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) (2008) Annual Report 2018. Singapore: National Committee for UNIFEM. Available at: https://www.unwomen.org.sg/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/Annual-Report-2008.pdf (Accessed: 16 August 2018).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2017) Human Development Reports: Singapore. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/SGP (Accessed: 13 May 2018).

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia-Pacific (UNESCAP) (2016) Asia- Pacific Migration Report 2015. Available at: http://www.unescap.org/resources/asia-pacific- migration-report-2015 (Accessed: 14 May 2018).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2006) Fact Sheet No. 24 (Rev.1), The Convention on Migrant Workers and its Committee. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet24rev.1en.pdf (Accessed: 14 May 2018).

Wessels, A., Ong, M., and Daniel, D. (2017) Bonded to the system. Labour exploitation in the foreign domestic work sector in Singapore. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321298926_Bonded_to_the_system_Labour_exploit ation_in_the_foreign_domestic_work_sector_in_Singapore (Accessed: 14 May 2018).

Yeoh, B., Huang, S. and III, J. (1999) ‘Migrant Female Domestic Workers: Debating the Economic, Social and Political Impacts in Singapore’, International Migration Review, 33(1), p.114-136.