My research investigates Singaporean residents' Not in my Backyard (NIMBY) attitudes on the construction of migrant dormitories through examining Singapore’s public housing policies, work permit regime, and Total Defense ideology. A 2015 opinion editorial from the Straits Times argues that NIMBY attitudes are signs of “a social backwardness” contrary to Singapore’s “forward-looking spirit of development” (What Nimbyism Says About Society 2016). Citing the vision of Singapore’s pioneers, the article critiques the “politiciza[tion]” of land development and today’s “regressive” prioritization of individual interests over communal ones (What Nimbyism Says About Society 2016). However, in the case of migrant dormitories, the values fueling NIMBY attitudes largely align with those of the state. Through my research, I aim to demonstrate that Singapore’s heteronormative Housing Development Board (HDB) policies, exploitative work permit regime, and Total Defense ideology have directly contributed to the logics that justify workers’ spatial exclusion. NIMBY attitudes toward the construction of migrant dormitories should not be understood as contrary to the country’s developmentalist spirit, but a consequence of it. Singapore’s developmentalist philosophy on immigration sees low-skilled migrants solely as economic actors with little to offer beyond cheap manpower, justifying their social, legal, and spatial exclusion (Neo 142). Furthermore, migration has not only been politicized, but securitized. Official rhetoric frames migration as a security threat, justifying the use of extraordinary measures and preventative surveillance practices. The securitization of migration serves to reinforce workers’ social and legal exclusion while signaling to the local population that foreigners should be sequestered rather than integrated.
This research is timely and relevant given that migrant housing is currently being reevaluated in response to public outcry over the conditions workers suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Migrant construction workers, packed into overcrowded dormitories with poor hygiene facilities, accounted for over 90% of Singapore’s cases and have since been relocated to 36 temporary locations. Due to spatial constraints, many of these locations are near residential areas and officials have issued statements asking that Singaporeans reject the NIMBY mindset. However, as pointed out by Alex Au, vice president of the nonprofit Transient Workers Count Too, there has been “mixed messaging” from the government (Chandran). Statements that praise workers for their contributions to the economy and condemn xenophobic sentiments are arguably gestural given that these new dormitories resemble “internment camps” with “prison-like” conditions (Chandran). I am particularly interested in the Quick Build Dormitories (QBD) that have been set up in Kranji Way, Tuas Crescent, Tuas South Boulevard, Jalan Tukang, Admiralty Street, Choa Chu Kang Grove, Choa Chu Kang Way, and Tampines Industrial Ave 2. QBDs are semi permanent structures designed to last around three years, and their successes and failures are likely to influence the development of permanent housing solutions in the future. Currently, notable features include 24/7 security patrol, self sustaining facilities that provide for all of the workers’ entertainment and social reproduction needs, and point to point transportation (Tan). These security measures further contribute to the securitization of migration by barring all opportunities for integration and feeding into the fear and exclusion that underpin NIMBY attitudes.
In order to understand the specific concerns behind Singaporean residents’ NIMBY attitudes, I am revisiting two formative incidents that have shaped locals’ perceptions of migrant construction workers: the Serangoon Gardens Petition and the Little India Riots. In 2008, residents of Serangoon Gardens —an upper middle class neighborhood— signed a petition against the construction of a migrant dormitory, citing concerns ranging from overcrowding and traffic management to increasing crime rates and real estate devaluation (Neo 149). The government ultimately compromised by reducing the number of occupants, establishing a separate exit leading away from the residential area, and building integrated facilities within the dorm complex, setting a precedent for the spatial segregation of migrants from residents (Neo 149). The 2013 Little India Riots, catalyzed by a bus accident and consequent death of an Indian worker, led to a series of “recalibration measures” that involved the deportation of fifty-seven migrant workers, ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol, installation of surveillance cameras, deployment of police patrols with body cameras, fencing of bus terminals, and designation of migrant dormitories as public spaces (Teo 215-220). While the government stressed that the incident was “spontaneous” and “localized”, its responses were guided by fears of recurrence, leading to the securitization of migrant bodies and reinforcement of xenophobic prejudices (Teo 214). To investigate attitudes specifically around QBD dormitories, I am conducting a theme analysis of online comments beneath official government Facebook announcements. I will be engaging in inductive coding, meaning that codes will be derived through an iterative process rather than predetermined. Themes will be analyzed in relation to insights derived from my literature review and secondary research.
Works Cited
Chandran, Rina. “Singapore Calls for 'Mindset' Change as Migrant Workers Are Rehoused.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 10 June 2020, www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus- singapore-trfn/singapore-calls-for-mindset-change-as-migrant-workers-are-rehoused- idUSKBN23H1EO.
NEO, Jaclyn L. “Riots and Rights: Law and Exclusion in Singapore’s Migrant Worker Regime.” Asian Journal of Law and Society, vol. 2, no. 1, 2015, pp. 137–168., doi:10.1017/ als.2015.1.
Tan, Boon Hun. “Everything about 'Quick Build Dorms': New Dormitories Built near HDB Estates.” Goody Feed, 12 Oct. 2020, goodyfeed.com/qbd-facts-restrictions/.
Teo, Terri-Anne. Civic Multiculturalism in Singapore: Revisiting Citizenship, Rights and Recognition. 1st ed., Springer International Publishing, 2019.
“What Nimbyism Says About Society.” The Straits Times, The Straits Times, 19 Jan. 2016, www.straitstimes.com/opinion/what-nimbyism-says-about-society.