Meine Merkliste Geteilte Merkliste PDF oder EPUB erstellen

Labour Migration System in Southeast Asia | Southeast Asia | bpb.de

Southeast Asia Labour Migration System in Southeast Asia Southeast Asia Philippines

Labour Migration System in Southeast Asia

Brenda S.A. Yeoh

/ 7 Minuten zu lesen

There is extensive labour migration in Southeast Asia. Most receiving states in the region strive to keep migration temporary, ruling out family reunification, long-term residency and naturalization.

Container village for migrant construction workers in Samut Prakan on the outskirts of Bangkok, Thailand. (© picture-alliance/dpa)

Southeast Asia is currently home to some of the world’s most significant labour exporting nation-states. In the 1970s, the oil boom in the Middle East and Gulf states generated a huge demand for construction labour, which was largely met by recruiting migrant workers from South and Southeast Asian (i.e. the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand) countries. The Asian workforce was preferred for a number of reasons, including migrants’ acceptance of low wages and their political neutrality, important for safeguarding the political interests of the oil rich monarchies. This in turn prompted states such as the Philippines to promote migration as a development strategy to ease unemployment pressures at home and generate foreign exchange from migrant remittances.

From the 1980s, international migration in the region gained further impetus as intra-regional labour migration increased in significance. The economic growth of newly industrialised economies in Asia began to generate a demand for low-skilled and semi-skilled workers to fill the lower rungs of the economy – that is, socially devalued jobs such as construction, domestic and care work – shunned by the citizen workforce. Within Southeast Asia, the labour-short destination states of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei imported workers largely from Indonesia and the Philippines, while Thailand became the main destination for cross-border migrant workers from countries through which the Mekong River flows, specifically, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

With the dawn of the twenty-first century, Southeast Asian migration gained further momentum as part of global migration-and-development discourses that foreground “triple win” benefits to all three parties involved – migrant workers, destination countries and origin countries. Bolstered by a new awareness of the size and importance of remittances flowing from migrants back to their countries of origin, there was growing consensus that “migration reduces poverty on an extraordinary scale, that well-managed migration is one of the most powerful enablers of development, and that migration should be more systematically included in national, bilateral, and international development strategies”. For many sending countries, not only does the volume of remittances dwarf international aid and investment flows, remittances, as a private fund flowing from individual migrants at destination to their family members at origin, also appear to be resistant to economic downturns and less susceptible to being siphoned off by corrupt officials. As an indication of the importance of migration as a development strategy, the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Agenda identifies – for the first time – migration as a cross-cutting issue in global development, encouraging countries to “facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies” in the service of reducing inequalities.

In this context, this paper discusses the rise of a temporary migration regime in Southeast Asia before turning to two key issues of concern associated with such a regime: (1) compounding forms of migrant precarity; and (2) transnational families and gendered care practices.

Migration in Southeast Asia – Data at a Glance

In 2020, there were an estimated 23.6 million Southeast Asians living outside their country of origin. The Philippines was the country with the highest number of emigrants (6.1 million), followed by Indonesia (4.6 million) and Myanmar (3.7 million). Most Southeast Asian migrants remained on the continent (15 million). Of these, 7.1 million even stayed within the Southeast Asian region. The most important reason for migration is the search for work and/or better income. For many families, labour migration is an important poverty reduction strategy. Women make up a significant share of Southeast Asian migrants. For example, in 2020, 61 percent of migrants from Thailand were women, and more than 55 percent of those from Malaysia and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Many migrant women are employed as domestic workers.

Source: Externer Link: Migration Data Portal, Migration data in South-eastern Asia.

A Temporary Migration Regime

Large-scale migrations within the region started at a time when Southeast Asian countries were still in the process of consolidating projects of nation-building in the 1970s. Postcolonial nation-states such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore focused on welding together a nation-state from ‘an already existing plurality’ rooted in the diasporas and people movements of colonial times. In the struggle for territorial legitimacy and social unity, these nation-states exercised the power of sovereignty through using citizenship rules as a legal instrument of exclusion that sharply separates citizens as insiders from those deemed outsiders.

In this context, the migration regime that emerged in the region was premised on keeping migration temporary, and apart from creating a privileged pathway for highly skilled migrants to gain residency and citizenship, most Asian receiving nation-states “rule[d] out settlement, family reunification and long-term integration, including acquisition of citizenship, for less skilled migrants”. The labour migration system that developed in Asia was one that minimised challenges to the fragile imaginary of the nation-state in the making, by rendering migrants as transient sojourners whose place in host societies is to sell their labour but make no claims on the receiving nation-state. The temporary migration regime is hence underpinned by a form of economic nationalism that prioritises state intervention to protect national economies and restrict social welfare to citizens on the one hand, and principles of enforced transience, exclusion and non-integration with regard to labour migrants on the other.

The development of a temporary migration regime has also been accompanied by the rapid growth of a wide range of intermediaries – licensed recruitment agencies, transport providers, immigration lawyers, housing and placement agents, and informal recruiters – who play important roles in organising, facilitating and channelling migration flows. Precisely because labour migration policies are restrictive and complex, the demand for brokers with the expertise of navigating labyrinthine migration regulations has grown with the expansion of new markets. By outsourcing certain elements of migration governance to the migration industry while retaining regulatory authority, receiving states are able to save costs, ensure flexibility, avoid blame and circumvent the need for formal cooperation with migrant-sending countries. Meanwhile, for prospective migrants, increasing dependence on brokers entails additional migration costs and entrenches indebtedness.

Compounding Forms of Migrant Precarity

Under a temporary migration regime, low-waged migrant workers undertake considerable risks and endure continual precarity as they navigate a narrow path hemmed in by the ‘‘intractable antagonism between market demands for migrant labor and citizen demands for closure’’. Migrant precarity is produced in multiple, intersecting ways.

First, temporary labour migration is predicated on the principle of permanent temporariness where migrants are not expected or allowed to settle or integrate into the receiving society. Employment is based on time-limited contracts, with few (if any) pathways to permanent residency and with repatriation upon completion of service. As disposable labour, temporary migrants are often treated as an “antidote” to excessive nationalist fears of migrants as temporary migration allows for a highly controlled form of entry and exit into nation-states that can be calibrated in accordance with industry needs and the degree of social tolerance. With few (if any) social networks (social capital) to claim a place in receiving society and often confined to peripheral spaces such as migrant dormitories and ethnic enclaves, temporary migrants become easy targets for vilification and blame in times of economic downturns or health crises, as was witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Second, immigration precarity that renders the temporary migrant socially and legally insecure in the receiving nation-state lays the foundation for employment precarity. Temporary migrants take on undesirable, dangerous, and socially devalued jobs such as construction, domestic, care and sanitation work shunned by the citizenry of receiving countries. As transient workers, they are frequently excluded or only partially incorporated into labour laws, with minimal access to the full range of rights available to citizens. Their deportability is vested in the hands of employers who have the right to cancel contracts at will. As a result, they often feel compelled to endure unsafe and/or exploitative workplace conditions, for fear of having their work permits revoked by their employers. Migrant precarity is hence a condition of differential inclusion, where migrants are incorporated into the low-wage end of the labour market but denied access to other areas of society (such as social welfare, citizenship and political participation).

Third, migrant precarity is also compounded by the prevalence of commercial brokers in recruitment and subcontracting of migrant labour. While intermediaries facilitate and channel migrant mobility across borders, they also increase migrant indebtedness, down-source risks to migrants, blur responsibility towards migrants’ welfare, and exploit their vulnerabilities for profit.

Transnational Families and Gendered Care Practices

For many migrant-sending families in Southeast Asia, parental migration as a strategy of survival or social-economic advancement splits the family unit, often for long periods of time. Left-behind children grow up for part or all of their young lives in the absence of a migrant father, a migrant mother, or both, and under the care of a ‘single’ parent or other surrogate caregivers. In areas such as rural Indonesia and Vietnam where feminised out-migration streams predominate, established gender norms may either be challenged by changing social practices where women assume breadwinner roles, or continue to regulate traditionally scripted roles for men and women but in new ways.

When women become migrant breadwinners, gender ideals surrounding motherhood continue to prevail in a transnational context. Women ‘mother from a distance’ by employing (tele)communications regularly to transmit transnational circuits of emotional care and financial remittances to their families and children left in source countries. The care vacuum in the absence of mothers is often filled by female relatives such as grandmothers and aunts.

At the same time, a complex picture of more flexible gender practices of care in sending countries is also emerging. In place of the image of the delinquent left-behind man who is resistant to adjusting his family duties in the woman’s absence, some Southeast Asian men strive to live up to masculine ideals of being both ‘good fathers’ and ‘independent breadwinners’ when their wives are working abroad, by taking on at least some care functions that signified parental love and authority while holding on to paid work (even if monetary returns are low) for a semblance of economic autonomy. As the temporary migration regime impinges on the gender division of labour, Southeast Asian households continue to rework roles relating to both breadwinning and care provisioning in order to ‘do family’ across borders.

Quellen / Literatur

Angenendt S. (2014) Triple-win migration: Challenges and opportunities, Migration Strategy Group on Global Competitiveness, Externer Link: https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/en/publication/2014-triple-win-migration-challenges-and-opportunities

Baey G. and Yeoh B.S.A. (2018) “The lottery of my life’’: Migration trajectories and the production of precarity among Bangladeshi migrant workers in Singapore’s construction industry. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 27(3), 249-272

Collins F.L. and Bayliss T. (2020) The good migrant: Everyday nationalism and temporary migration management on New Zealand dairy farms, Political Geography 80, 102193.

Enright B. (2013) (Re)considering new agents: A review of labour market intermediaries within labour geography, Geography Compass 7(4), 287–299.

Garcés-Mascareñas B. (2010) Legal production of illegality in a comparative perspective. The cases of Malaysia and Spain, Asia Europe Journal 8, 77–89.

Goh, C. Wee, K. and Yeoh B.S.A. (2017) Migration governance and the migration industry in Asia: moving domestic workers from Indonesia to Singapore, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 17, 401-433.

Hewison, K. and Young K. (2006) Transnational Migration and Work in Asia, London: Routledge.

Hoang, L.A. and B.S.A. Yeoh (2011) Breadwinning wives and ‘left-behind’ husbands: men and masculinities in the Vietnamese transnational family, Gender & Society 25(6), 717-739.

Kaur, A. (2010) Labour migration trends and policy challenges in Southeast Asia, Policy and Society 29, 385-397.

Lindquist, L., Xiang, B. and Yeoh, B.S.A. (2012) Introduction: Opening the black box of migration: Brokers, the organisation of transnational mobility, and the changing political economy in Asia, Pacific Affairs 85, 7-18.

Mosler V.E. and Laczko F. (2022) Migration and the SDGs: Measuring Progress, Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM).

Parreñas, R.S. (2005) Long distance intimacy: class, gender and intergenerational relations between mothers and children in Filipino transnational families, Global Networks 5, 317–36.

Rajan S.I. and Oomen, G.Z. (2020) Asianization in the Gulf: A fresh outlook, in S.I. Rajan and G.Z. Oomen (eds.) Asianization of Migrant Workers in the Gulf Countries, Dordrecht: Springer, 1-17.

Rosewarne, S. (2010) Globalisation and the commodification of labour: Temporary labour migration, Economic and Labour Relations Review 20, 99–110.

Fussnoten

Fußnoten

  1. Rajan and Oomen (2020).

  2. Kaur (2010).

  3. Angenendt (2014).

  4. de Haas (2012).

  5. Mosler and Laczko (2022), p. 4.

  6. Asis and Battistella (2013), p. 31.

  7. Collins, Lai and Yeoh (2013), p. 15.

  8. Asis and Battistella (2013), p. 32.

  9. Yeoh et al. (2020).

  10. Lindquist, Xiang and Yeoh (2012).

  11. Goh, Wee and Yeoh, (2017).

  12. Wickramasekara and Baruah (2017).

  13. Garces-Mascarenas (2010), p. 87.

  14. Collins and Bayliss (2020).

  15. Hewison and Young (2006).

  16. Rosewarne (2010).

  17. Enright (2013); Baey and Yeoh (2018).

  18. Hoang and Yeoh (2011).

  19. Parrenas (2005).

  20. Hoang and Yeoh (2011).

Lizenz

Dieser Text ist unter der Creative Commons Lizenz "CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 - Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International" veröffentlicht. Autor/-in: Brenda S.A. Yeoh für bpb.de

Sie dürfen den Text unter Nennung der Lizenz CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 und des/der Autors/-in teilen.
Urheberrechtliche Angaben zu Bildern / Grafiken / Videos finden sich direkt bei den Abbildungen.
Sie wollen einen Inhalt von bpb.de nutzen?

Weitere Inhalte

is Raffles Professor of Social Sciences as well as Research Leader of the Asian Migration Cluster at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore. Her research interests include highly skilled talent migration, international student mobilities, care migration, national identity and citizenship issues, family dynamics and international marriage migrants.