“Stigma on a Spectrum: Differentiated Stigmatization of Migrant Domestic Workers’ Romantic Relationships in Singapore”, by Nicole Lim and Anju Mary Paul

Nicole Lim and Anju Mary Paul’s “Stigma on a Spectrum: Differentiated Stigmatization of Migrant Domestic Worker’s Romantic Relationships in Singapore” unpacks the layered socioeconomic experiences of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in romantic relationships within the context of Singaporean society. The authors contend that the profound sense of stigmatisation exists for FDWs because of three unique qualities: 1) their migrant (foreign) label, 2) their vulnerable economic position as domestic workers, and 3) their gender (almost always female). These foment sentiments of illegitimacy, impurity, and otherness between FDWs and the rest of Singapore’s residents. Lim and Paul complicate this argument by claiming that such stigma is stratified based on the relative concept of “social distance” between individuals and entities, with increased social distance correlated with increased stigmatisation. Finally, the notion of stigma as a unilateral experience is rendered obsolete and replaced with a fluid and circumstantial understanding of the socioeconomic atmosphere that FDWs must handle.

The authors argue that the social group least associated with stigmatising FDWs are family members who often welcome the presence of FDWs’ relationships as long as they are “serious” ones. Next-receptive are fellow migrant workers whom the authors claim relatively understand FDWs because the two groups share similar backgrounds. It is when more-corporate social bodies relate to FDWs that the stigmatisation is observed to be the most ostracizing. Employers take a much harder stance on their domestic workers’ relationships (ie. forbidding relationships) and are often motivated by self-protection from losing their financial and social standing. Finally, Lim and Paul observe a tenuous relationship between FDWs and the Singaporean state with its draconian legal measures to restrict worker’s economic and reproductive rights, to name a few, all while expecting FDWs to make great sacrifices for their work.

I found Lim and Paul’s visceral claim about how impurity and corruption largely define the stigma regarding FDWs’ relationships as a tangible manifestation of the complex relationship they document. Physically, several Singaporean employers cited the “stinking up” of places where FDWs were in relationships (15). More than that, Lim and Paul highlight the element of social/moral corruption which with examples like Preethi’s, where FDWs’ relationships supposedly transcend generational organisation and can inflict harm on an array of Singaporean demographics. Lim and Paul associate these deeply rooted to FDWs’ sexual/gendered characteristics more than their ethnic ones. I still wonder if there are certain comparative elements between ethnicities of FDWs and their personal backgrounds that contribute to employer’s hesitations and prejudices regarding FDWs in a way that gendered discussions cannot explain.

However, the tuggle identified between individual vs. state dynamics is perhaps my favorite one that Lim and Paul grapple with. It is a salient observation that social groups (other migrant workers, employers, maid placement agencies, even sending countries at large) are more willing to defend a collective perspective and reputation than they are to be defensive about personal preferences. Lim and Paul reference this when other migrant workers’ receptivity to FDW’s is qualified in the context of religion, where there is very much a sentiment of FDW’s tainting the shared ethnicity and faith of the community. Likewise, employers like Jane are heavily turned off by the prospect of the state chasing down an employer for failing to comply with governmental policies, so as much as employers may be receptive to FDWs’ relationships, they almost resort to stigmatising them as a fallback instead. If nothing else, entire sending countries are hyperaware of their global reputations as “purveyors of reliable workers for the global economy” and prefer to maintain the group image, even at the expense of their workers’ well-being (18).

Are these attitudes a result of the collectivist mentality that often permeates Southeast Asian society? Is it a reflection of traditionally sacrificing personal intentions to conform to the state-established agenda? And, thus, do individual narratives like Sally’s more-lenient perspective indicate a modernising environment that counters against the unspoken united front? If nothing else, Lim and Paul have identified that the stratified stigmatisations of FDWs in relationships exists in a chaotic confluence of preestablished agendas and pressing realities. The FDW’s experience is incredibly layered and each person’s narrative lives in constant flux with others, indicating the richness of Lim and Paul’s study and its relevance in a discussion of a modernising Southeast Asia.

Briefly, a few ideas I have for further investigation and further delving into layers of the situation. As Lim and Paul acknowledge, a longitudinal study of the FDWs would likely reveal nuances in their situations over time. Lim and Paul also reference possible “shadow networks” of FDW-adjacent community members who’ve acted as “distributed surveillance” monitoring the FDW-Singapore relationship – examining this adds even more depth to the conversation of different actor groups. Finally, Preethi’s experience spotlights the digital age and the turmoil that an increasingly-interconnected society may have on current social dynamics and provides a new environment to understand the unfolding situation from.

Questions: 

1. To what extent can the situation regarding FDWs in relationships and their reception in Singaporean society be framed as a discussion of sex/gender relations as opposed to inter-ethnic clashes?
2. Lim and Paul identify paradoxes regarding the how FDWs must compartmentalise their “work” and “home” lives – how do elements of modernity in Southeast Asia contribute to such multifaceted circumstances?

Quotes:

• “With such definitional ambiguity in place, employers and employment agencies are free to dictate their own terms and may disallow domestic workers from having any romantic relationships in Singapore as a one-size-fits-all preventive measure” (5).
• “In social contexts where individual behavior is linked to the reputation of the ethnic group as a whole, members can take it upon themselves to police the sexual conduct of their fellow members. This is exactly what we observed among the co-ethnic domestic worker community in spaces in Singapore where they felt they had to tread more lightly” (13-14).
• “’[I will] send her home. [Jane laughs.] I mean it will be hot shit already, hot trouble. I mean nobody wants to invite trouble into their life…. Just like any pregnant cases – straightaway have to send back, what? You don’t have to bear any responsibility’”….. Jane’s last comment – ‘you don’t have to bear responsibility’ – reveals the other reason why she would not accept her domestic worker dating – to absolve herself of any responsibility in the eyes of the Singaporean state and protect herself from any potential financial consequences. In Jane’s case, the introduction of romance into her domestic worker’s life was firm red line she would not cross (14).