Far From Home

far from home

 

A happy-sad story about foreign workers in Dubai, who fill up 90% of this city’s 2.1-million-strong population, and obviously, most of the jobs the Emiratis completely never want to: serving up the coffee on Starbucks, taking care of these Western expatriates’ kids, building bizarre-shaped skyscrapers, assisting customers at splurge shopping malls, and a long list to go.

Read the full article on National Geographic Magazine.

Bonus: click this Wikipedia article to find out, in details, a table of countries’ list with the world’s largest foreign-born population.

 

Excerpt:

 

No other city on Earth, though, packs 21st-century international workers into one showy space quite like Dubai. Arrive in the standard manner, disembarking into the sprawling international airport, and you will pass a hundred remittance workers like Teresa and Luis before you reach the curbside cabstand. The young woman pouring Starbucks espressos is from the Philippines, or maybe Nigeria. The restroom cleaner is from Nepal, or maybe Sudan. The cabdriver, gunning it up the freeway toward downtown Dubai, is from northern Pakistan or Sri Lanka or the southern Indian state of Kerala.

And the mad-looking, postmodernist skyscrapers outside the taxi windows? This building, the one like a massive hatchet blade, or the one that resembles a giant golf ball atop a 20-story pancake stack? All built by foreign laborers—South Asian men primarily, from India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. If it’s daylight, empty buses will be parked in the shade beneath the skeletons of the skyscrapers still under construction. They’re waiting to carry men back at dusk to group-housing units, crowded as prison barracks, where most of them are required to live.

Difficult living conditions for foreign workers can be found everywhere in the world. But everything about Dubai is exaggerated. The city’s modern history starts just over a half century ago, with the discovery of oil in nearby Abu Dhabi, then a separate and independent sheikhdom. The United Arab Emirates was founded in 1971 as a national federation encompassing six of these sheikhdoms—the seventh joined the following year—and since Dubai had comparatively little oil, the city’s royal family used its portion of the country’s new riches to transform the small trading city into a commercial capital to dazzle the world. The famous indoor ski slope is only one wing of a Dubai shopping mall, which is not even the biggest of the city’s many malls; that one contains a three-story aquarium and a full-size ice hockey rink. The tallest building on the planet is in Dubai; Tom Cruise was seen rappelling down its outer wall in one of the Mission: Impossible movies. Nearly everywhere the visitor looks, things are extravagant and new.

The two faces of Singapore

singapore rich

 

 

The existence of this tiny, little, 5.5-million-people-strong nation is primarily due to the inflow of two main things this country critically needs: capital inflow and foreign talents.

Speaking of capital influx, it takes this city-state no more than five decades of absolute one-party control to restore law and order, from a previously poverty-laden, conflict-plagued shantytown into one of the world’s richest metropolises equivalent to its doppelgangers, either Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, New York City, or London. With social stability perfectly well-maintained, the flow of capital is well sustained. It is now one of the planet’s most promising banking hubs, and also tax havens, tantamount to that of Switzerland or Cayman Islands.

Simultaneously, as Singaporean population’s fertility rate is critically below its replacement rate (1.2 instead of 2.0), the government also finds itself increasingly necessary to attract foreigners to come, work, and also live in this tiny country whose GDP size is equivalent to that of its counterpart, Malaysia. Approximately 1 million foreign workers make up one-third of Singapore’s workforce currently, and overall, nearly 2.5 million people living in Singapore are not born in this island. The government has even announced plans to import ‘another’ 1.5 million migrants until 2030 to stabilize the population structure, which is expected, altogether with the number of migrants, to reach 7 million by that year.

Nevertheless, there are unexpected costs with such phenomena.

With global nouveau riches, and also an influx of foreign workers from Third World countries, flocking in to Singapore, problems arise. Relationship between them and the locals becomes intense, social gap widens, and most commonly, political repression prevails. Many, among the latter, who do menial jobs, complain of low pay and unequal treatment, but opinions are frequently suppressed in the highly strict government.

And with the Little India riots recently taking place two days prior (and conducted, ironically, by foreign migrant workers), this is becoming an increasingly alarming concern among all the populace in the country.

Two articles below highlight the two faces of Singapore: one dominated by the globe’s millionaires, and the other by commoners struggling for a better life in a brand-new megalopolis.

 

This is the article, about the former, from Wall Street Journal. Here is the excerpt:

 

Welcome to the world’s newest Monaco, a haven for the ultra-rich in what until recently was mocked as one of the most straight-laced, boring cities in the world. When most people think of Singapore, if they do at all, they think of an order-obsessed Asian version of Wall Street or London’s Canary Wharf, only with implausibly clean, sterile streets and no crime. The southeast Asian city-state of five million people is perhaps best known for banning the sale of chewing gum or caning vandals, including American Michael Fay in 1994 for spray-painting cars. Drug traffickers face the death penalty, and even Ault complains the authorities won’t let him import his prized gun collection, which now sits in his other homes in Palm Beach and Manhattan.

But over the past decade, Singapore has undergone a dramatic makeover, as the rich and famous from Asia and beyond debark on its shores in search of a glamorous new home—and one of the safest places to park their wealth. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin gave up his American citizenship in favor of permanent residence there, choosing to live on and invest from the island while squiring around town in a Bentley. Australian mining tycoon Nathan Tinkler, that country’s second wealthiest man under 40, whose fortune is pegged at $825 million by Forbes, also chose to move to Singapore last year. They join Bhupendra Kumar Modi, one of India’s biggest telecom tycoons who gained Singapore citizenship in 2011, as well as New Zealand billionaire Richard Chandler, who relocated in 2008, and famed U.S. investor Jim Rogers, who set up shop there in 2007. Gina Rinehart, one of the world’s richest women, slapped down $46.3 million for a pair of Singapore condominium units last year.

 

And this is the latter, from The Daily Beast, primarily concerned about foreign-hired construction workers. Here is the excerpt:

 

Construction workers don’t get issued regular work visas; they are considered “transient workers,” welcome in Singapore only for the labor they are doing. The rules stipulated in their work permits bar them from marrying Singaporean citizens (unless approved by the government) and from changing jobs. With permission to be in Singapore conditional upon their employer, workers are discouraged from rocking the boat. Complain too much and you could find your work permit cancelled and your right to remain in Singapore withdrawn. An unlucky worker might even find himself forcibly repatriated.

This gives employers an enormous amount of power over their migrant workers. Activists say they’ve come across contracts with all sorts of unreasonable and downright illegal clauses. A 2008 contract from a subcontractor stipulated that workers would not be entitled to payment for overtime or work done on public holidays. Workers who complained to any government ministry could also be made to pay between $80—$240, which could account for about three to ten days’ worth of wages, for the employers’ trouble in addressing these complaints. And these are for the ‘lucky’ ones, who actually have contracts.