This article is co-authored by Lynn Lai and Luo Xuhong.
*This article is published in collaboration with Discuss Diglett, a blog run by youths keen on sharing their love for law, politics and economics. For more, check out Discuss Diglett's website and Instagram @DiscussDiglett today!
Two centuries since the days of indentured workers toiling away on sugar and rubber plantations, the agricultural sector in many parts of the developed world continues to rely on cheap migrant labour. Governments of destination states are increasingly turning to formalised temporary migration programmes (TMPs) as the cost-effective solution for labour shortages while avoiding the political minefield of expanding immigration pathways.
Like many other labour policies, TMPs look good on paper. Foreign workers enter on their own dime, work for a predetermined employer for a fixed period of time and leave when their contract expires. Migrant labour effectively addresses acute labour shortages during harvest season and contributes to the host nation's economy while the economies of their home countries also benefit through salary remittances sent home. Disputes and grievances would be escalated for investigation by a regulator or ombudsman for migrant labour.
Yet, the very structures that make TMPs efficient also make them fertile ground for exploitation - binding workers to single employers, inflating recruitment costs, and limiting avenues for redress. In doing so, they blur the line between legitimate labour mobility and modern slavery, raising urgent questions about the ethics and sustainability of the global migration model.
A Disposable Workforce
At the core of most TMPs is the binding nature of employment, in which workers are usually tied to a single visa sponsor (agent) and employer for the length of the contract, thereby guaranteeing availability of labour that matches the needs of employers. However, the converse is also true. Workers often find it almost impossible to leave abusive workplaces behind without risking the termination of their employment entirely. Furthermore, employers are often responsible for signing the paperwork that permits workers to change jobs in the first place.
Despite forming the backbone of UK's agriculture, migrant farmworkers often face an exploitative workplace when they arrive. Image credit: Dr Oana Burcu/ University of Notthingham
Debt bondage is also another recurring feature of many TMPs. Despite restrictions on excessive recruitment fees, many are still forced to fork out thousands of dollars (sometimes even taking loans) to unscrupulous recruitment agents for jobs. For instance, an OHCHR report found that foreign workers bound for the UK’s agriculture sector paid up to £3,000 in unofficial fees just to secure employment despite legislation clearly stating that all additional recruitment fees beyond the official £319 fee is illegal for migrant work in the UK.
Even when well-meaning regulation exists to safeguard migrant workers' rights, language barriers often discourage many from speaking up. The few that do face a complex maze of bureaucracy with claims often dragging on for years and usually are forced to leave the host nation upon visa expiry, well before the claim is processed. Faced with the potential of escalating costs together with an uncertain outcome, most choose to keep quiet, in effect enabling rogue employers to continue the cycle of exploitation once more.
Retaliation is often on the table as employers routinely direct threats of dismissal towards workers with even minor infractions, knowing that most have no choice but to comply. Therein lies the power asymmetry: while workers face an uphill battle to switch employers, employers themselves looking to replace workers (often sending them home prematurely, as mid-season job matches are rare) need only sign the necessary paperwork.
The current enforcement landscape for Seasonal Workers is fragmented and does not offer an adequate safeguard of seasonal worker rights. ~UK Migration Advisory Committee, 2024
Once indebted, workers have little choice but to endure long hours to avoid financial ruin. Many live in the constant fear of dismissal as losing their jobs implies that they would return home worse off. Unlike the domestic workforce, Canadian TMP farm labourers are typically excluded from the rights and protections prescribed by the Employment Standards Legislation as these conditions are negotiated directly with the employer based on the labour needs of the latter.
Canadian TMP farm labourers are typically excluded from the rights and protections prescribed by the Employment Standards Legislation. Image Credit: Toronto Metropolitan University
When all else fails, on-site inspections are the last avenue through which migrant workers can seek help. Yet, these are often carried out in a haphazard manner. Resource constraints coupled with the remoteness of many farms means that inspections are once in a blue moon (if at all - there are no regular or mandated checks on British farms that employ workers on Seasonal Workers Scheme visas). In other instances, employers are tipped off in advance, resulting in short-lived improvements in living/working conditions that quickly deteriorate after inspectors wrap up.
On Change and Progress
Reform must begin with acknowledging that systemic exploitation is firmly embedded within the legal and market frameworks of host countries. Policy solutions that only target “modern slavery” or individual bad actors miss the heart of the problem: laws that limit worker mobility and shield employers from accountability.
For a start, reforms should prioritise reducing the cost outlays by migrant workers even before they arrive at the workplace. Enter the Employer Pays Principle (EPP), a commitment for employers to bear most or all recruitment-related expenses including recruitment agency fees, travel costs and visa fees. By shifting upfront costs to the employer, this directly addresses the root cause of the debt bondage that many workers are ensnared in.
Championed by labour movements and international organisations, the EPP model has gained increasing awareness as a solution that enhances the transparency at all stages of the recruitment process, an opaque journey typically outsourced to third-parties with little oversight (and hence reports of outrageous fees and predatory loans often emerge). However, the model has faced criticism for its unsustainability, especially when the increased costs cannot be absorbed by the supply chain.
In low-profit industries such as UK horticulture (where some growers operate on extremely tight margins of 2%), an average estimated cost increase of £1,500 per worker associated with a mandatory EPP model will have serious consequences on food security. Instead, alternatives surfaced by a UK government review include establishing a reduced interest loan scheme for migrant workers struggling with large upfront costs as well as a cost-sharing model in which fees are shared between the employer and worker.
Beyond other stopgap solutions such as addressing funding shortfalls for clearing backlogs of labour inspections and enhancing outreach efforts aimed at breaking down the language barrier, labour protections must be significantly strengthened in the long term.
Studies have shown that the “temporary” nature of Canada’s agriculture vacancies are, in fact, structurally permanent, as evidenced by the large (40%) increase in the number of migrant farmworkers over a 5-year period ending in 2022. At the conclusion of a UN Special Rapporteur visit in 2024, the report highlighted recommendations to offer pathways to permanent residence for seasonal workers, affirming the reality that many are trapped in a cycle of circular migration.
Notably, Japan’s Specified Skilled Worker (SSW) visa is a leader in this regard. Launched in 2019, the SSW welcomes foreign workers in 16 major industries facing labour shortages with clearer work while the SSW (ii) variant offers foreigners with the necessary expertise a path to permanent residency. As countries grapple with falling birth rates and an increasing reliance on the Global South to keep major economic sectors humming along, it is imperative for policymakers to reconsider the notion of treating migrant workers as assets to be written off at the end of their useful life.
Australia’s 2024 “Workplace Justice Visa” is a promising solution that addresses a common refrain many face: report labour violations and face retaliation (possibly immediate dismissal) or suffer in silence to avoid jeopardising their right to work. This new visa allows migrant workers who have suffered workplace abuse to remain in the country for up to six months while pursuing a valid workplace exploitation claim certified by an accredited third-party. Crucially, the scheme also offers applicants protection from visa cancellation even if they have previously breached employment terms, such as exceeding work-hour limits.
On Singapore
Across advanced and emerging economies alike, migrant workers frequently operate in environments where formal protections exist on paper but fail in practice. The consequences are often stark. There are cases of migrant workers calling through the cracks, even in Singapore.
The Work Permit system ties workers to a single employer, with little room for job-switching or permanent settlement. While the city-state benefits significantly from its migrant workforce, particularly in sectors such as construction, cleaning, and domestic work, workers have few recourse for justice. Cases of domestic workers being subjected to starvation and physical abuse and its perpetrators receiving “lenient” sentences have reignited debate about whether existing laws offer meaningful safeguards for low-wage migrants, and whether legal aid is accessible to this exceptionally vulnerable group. Even in less extreme circumstances, avenues for redress are fraught with delays and uncertainty.
Consider the 2022 case involving construction firm Shanghai Chong Kee, who owed 268 migrant workers wages. Even though the Ministry of Manpower and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) eventually initiated an investigation into the salary arrears, Shanghai Chong Kee filed for liquidation amidst the ongoing probe. It is unclear if the workers have ever managed to receive the sum of their hard-earned wages as the firm they once worked for evaporates into thin air.
Migrant workers, constrained by low wages and heavy obligations to support families back home, often cannot afford the costs of legal representation to challenge injustices they face. For many, pro bono programmes are the only conceivable route to a lawyer. Under Pro Bono SG’s Ad Hoc Legal Aid scheme (migrant workers typically do not qualify for other schemes), less than 30% of referred applicants ultimately secure a lawyer, leaving many without the means to pursue justice at all.
Even then, obtaining redress is far from guaranteed. These schemes come with their own barriers: workers are expected to collate and submit extensive paperwork to substantiate their claims, facing an especially daunting process for most who are unfamiliar with Singapore’s legal system or not proficient in English.
It is thus heartening to see Singapore’s bipartite partners acting on this situation. Earlier this year, the Migrant Workers’ Centre and Pro Bono SG jointly launched the Migrant Workers’ Law Centre (MWLC) in Little India, a physical facility that provides free on-site legal advice, guidance, and representation for Work Permit and S Pass holders for a wide range of legal issues. Open six days a week, the MWLC significantly improves access to legal aid by providing regular, walk-in support. This is an important improvement over most existing legal clinics, which typically operate only once every fortnight and are reserved for Singaporeans.
As Singapore’s population continues to age and birth rates fall, dependency on foreign labour will only increase. Can - and should - Singapore continue to rely on a system that grants economic value without guaranteeing human dignity?
While not designed with exploitation in mind, the global migration system has been structured to maximise economic efficiency at the cost of fairness. As long as developed countries maintain laws that trap migrants in dependent, precarious positions, reform efforts focused only on addressing trafficking and modern slavery will fall short.
True progress requires legal and institutional change that expands worker autonomy, enhances enforcement mechanisms, and recognises the long-term contributions of migrants. The UN SDG 10.7 calls for “facilitated, orderly, safe and responsible migration”, not just the absence of slavery, but the presence of dignity and justice. To realise this vision, we must shift from a more transactional view of migrant labour towards one that views them as fellow humans, deserving of their own rights and avenues for recourse.
Immigration Services Agency of Japan. (n.d.). What Is the “Specified Skilled Worker” Status of Residence? Support Website for the Specified Skilled Worker Program. https://www.ssw.go.jp/en/about/visa/
United Nations General Assembly. (2024, July 22). Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, Tomoya Obokata. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/57/46/Add.1
Comentarios