By Renato Perdon
The importance of Filipino expatriates in the survival of the Philippines as a viable Asian economy may owe its debt from Overseas Filipino Workers, also known as OFW. This writer made a research on the backgrounds that give way to the need for foreign workers, including Filipino workers, in the Middle East.
Citizenship and foreign migrant workers are two major components of the Middle East labour markets history. The need for foreign migrant workers in the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) composed of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates was noticed in the late 1970s with less than a million overseas workers recorded. Ten years later in the 1980s, the number rose to staggering 2.7M foreign workers, including 212,000 Filipino migrant workers. The Commission on Filipinos Overseas listed the number of Filipino working in the above six countries in 2008 are as follows: Bahrain – 46,544; Kuwait – 146,518; Oman – 43,392; Qatar – 226,642; Saudi Arabia – 1,092,8909; and UAE – 574,379 and placed the total number of permanent, temporary and irregular Filipino residents in these countries at 2,133,284 Filipinos. For the entire world, CFO statistics indicated in 2008 that the number of Filipinos living overseas is 3,907,842 permanent, 3,626,259 temporary, and 653,609 irregular with a total of 8,187,710 worldwide.
The last official statistics released by the Philippine government indicated that there are now 11 million Filipino expatriates working in 193 countries throughout the world, and majority of them are found in the Middle East. Current figures show that Filipino expatriates send an estimated $12 billion annually or about 10% of gross domestic product, to keep the Philippine economy afloat.
The deployment of Filipino workers is expected to continue as the citizens and governments of the oil states have acquired a taste for services provided by foreign workers, particularly Filipino workers. In fact, observers had predicted that the situation will take generations before locals would be able to fill technical positions that the newly constructed infrastructures and industries need. Hence, foreigners will comprise a substantial proportion of the labour force of the Gulf States for many years to come, despite the so-called economic downturn.
The influence of foreign workers into the Middle East accelerated the development of the region but it created problems. According to a research undertaken by authors Richards and Waterbury, the large-scale immigration in the Middle East created political problems, particularly on matters affecting national security. The complexity of the problems brought about by labour migration necessitated the adoption of preventive measures. Citizenship or nationality requirement was deemed appropriate to control future trouble that would undermine the labour market stability.
The arrival of foreign workers in the Gulf area can be traced back to the early period of the oil industry. The importance of the role of foreign workers became evident during the economic boom that followed the discovery of oil on the Arabian shore of the Gulf in the 1930s. Initially, international oil companies dominated the regional labor market from 1910 to 1950. The early workforce consisted of professional, technical and managerial persons mainly from the UK and the US. The inflow of skilled/semi-skilled artisans and clerical workers from the Indian sub-continent, and the intra-Gulf labour circulation came later.
The lack of local labour supply obliged the oil companies to recruit foreign workers for clerical as well as skilled and semi-skilled positions. However, the composition of the immigrant workforce was closely controlled by the terms of the oil concessions that were also subject to certain British political controls.
In the beginning, a series of treaties with local rulers who in exchange for British protection had agreed to surrender their external sovereignty. The primary concern of the British early oil concessions was the exclusion of foreign, particularly the Americans, interest from the area and to retain the Gulf as an exclusive British preserve.
The United States interests, however, penetrated the region in the early 1930s with concession obtained in Bahrain and Kuwait. It was during this period that a nationality clause became part of British and American concessions. Companies were obliged to employ local nationals and reserve the right to import and employ foreign labour, if local labour market could not supply the specific skills required. These concessions agreements which gave the companies the right to introduce foreign labour contradicted the British policy of exclusion of foreign interests from the region.
From the earliest stages of oil exploitation in the Middle East, the British political authorities clearly imposed on oil company managements the required nationality clause in any oil concession in the region. The restrictive nationality clause was also strictly enforced in Qatar where a highly concentration of American employees existed. The imposition of the nationality clause requirement minimised the penetration of the Gulf by US companies, notwithstanding established American commercial interests in the region’s oil industry. The importance of nationality as a status was underscored in determining the nationality composition of the clerical staff, including skilled and semi-skilled labourers who were primarily recruited from the British India.
By 1950, the oil companies employed almost 8,000 immigrants from the Indian sub-continent. Indians were also employed in the growing non-oil related labour markets in Bahrain and Kuwait. It was estimated that around 15,000 Indian sub-continent nationals were employed during that period. The dominance of the British Indians among the clerical staff and also among skilled artisans and semi-skilled labourers resulted to irritants between local labour and the foreign workers and escalated to the strikes of 1938, 1943 and 1944. The only area where the British authorities did not exercise any control over the use of immigrant labour in the early oil industry was in Al-Hasa, eastern Saudi Arabia where the Americans were given the right to employ qualified Saudi Arabian nationals before employing other nationals.
In the 1949 concession granted to the Getty Oil, preference was given to the importation of labour to the citizens of other Arab States. By 1952,the Saudi Arabian government required that 75% of employees in any foreign enterprise should be recruited from the region. In the absenceof British control and the responsibility to recruit British Indians, the employment of foreign migrant workers in Saudi Arabia was different to that in the other Gulf areas.
With the expansion of oil operations in 1944, the ARAMCO recruited the Italian internees in Eritrea as artisans and skilled manual workers. By 1946, the largest non-American foreign employees in Saudi Arabia were the 1,700 Italians. The entry of Italian workers into Saudi Arabia was allowed on condition that Italian labour would not be given preferential treatment or accommodations superior to those given to local Arabs. In 1948, semi-skilled labor were recruited in Khartoum and Aden. In 1949, one hundred Palestinians were recruited by the American Company and this rose to 826 workers the following year.
The second wave of foreign migrant workers took place in 1973. This was the result of the large scale industrialisation in the region. The expansion of the size and role of foreign work force in the Middle East labour market brought greater state intervention through immigration. After the increase in oil prices the volume of migrant labour was so great that the national population of nearly all the small Gulf States constituted the minorities in their own states.
Labour regulations became a critical factor in the management of rapid economic growth and the insurance of political stability. The solution, according to one of the published articles dealing with the subject, was to internationalise these new working classes by denying them the rights of citizenship. Arab labour migrants lost its popularity as the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia became more concerned about the growth of political radicalism amongst Arab immigrant communities. For instance, troubles were experienced with the rise of Nasserism, the rebellions in the peninsula, the increasing working class activism and the emergence of the Palestinian Resistance Movement.
A much regulated labour market was therefore implemented after 1973 when Asian labour migrants became visible. This was the result of an enormous demand for labour created by national development programmes that were financed by new oil wealth and the need to fill new jobs and works Arabs nationals were unwilling to accept. Asian workers’ racial and cultural distinctiveness made them socially visible and they were subjected to greater control than their Arab counterparts. The advent of the construction sector give way to a much stricter physical separation of nationals and non-nationals, particularly in Saudi Arabia. The temporary status of Asian migrant workers was highlighted, and restrictions, such as bringing in dependents, were strictly enforced.
State labour, immigration and citizenship laws purposely limited Asian workers’ political and legal rights while the system of contracting made through trans-national companies became the common practice. Companies became responsible for the recruitment and imposition of discipline of their own workers. The construction sector used contracting to circumscribe the terms and conditions under which labour migrant entered the country.
One of the Asian countries benefited from the influx of Asian workforce in the Middle East is the Philippines. Latest statistic issued by the Department of Labour show that Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) send back annually to the country some US14.6 billion in remittances, excluding the actual amount that passed through Philippine banks, and the actual amount through padala or hand-carried by returning workers.
A generous estimate is US22 billion, the largest source of foreign income of the Philippines, exceeding by far the official annual average of US2.5 billion foreign direct investments in the country. Because of this, the government became dependent on OFWs earnings and continue to pursue a policy of encouraging Filipinos to look for jobs overseas, particularly in the Middle East.
The demand for labour in the Middle East was shifted from the construction to the service sector. Because of this, Asian workers found themselves, particularly Filipino migrant workers, in specialised occupation based in the urban areas. There was a demand for maintenance and operative staff to serve the new infrastructure and industries. The jobs given them were both skilled and unskilled positions, including the socially stigmatised categories such as sales, production and other related occupations. Menial jobs like that of maids were not socially acceptable or desirable for Kuwaiti females. This development led to the segmentation of the labour market. Race and citizenship in social differentiation was clearly highlighted. The reasons for these are cost regulating costs and political control over foreign migrant workers.
This development however, enabled Asian workers to have a direct contact with the population of their host countries. The visibility of Asian workers in the urbanised areas became a problem and controversial issues in domestic politics of the Gulf States were noticed. There was an emerging conflict between nationals and non-nationals. The role of the Asian foreign workforce was strengthened when industrial development in the Middle East was not given emphasis, instead consumption economies based on organisation, investment in built environments, the import of high technology capital goods such as communication, transport system, military weapons have been developed and the importation of foreign labour continued.
The massive urbanisation of the oil-rich states and the importation of labour from the Third World countries gave way to the expansion of services and social differentiation lifestyles. A conflict between foreign workforce and national citizens over lifestyle and income expectations emerged. Foreign labour promoted among nationals the importance of education and urban living in realigning their economic and political expectations. There was a general rise in standards of living among the nationals. The presence of foreign workforce therefore became a sensitive political issue.
In his article ‘The Changing Role of Asian Labour Migration in the Middle East’, Michael Humphrey made a comparative discussion of Kuwait and Jordan as regards the use of citizenship in the development of the labour market in the two countries.
Kuwait is an example of a Middle East country dependent on foreign workers for its economic development programmes. Foreign nationals are estimated at 60% of its total population, about 1.5 million. 78% of its workforce consisted of foreign migrant labour.
There was a considerable concern among Kuwaitis authorities over the social and political consequences of the country’s dependence on migrant labour. Labour shortages in both skilled and unskilled workers were critical and this was compounded by the negative attitude of Kuwaitis workers towards job vacancies. The reason could be due to lack of technical know how or simply they dislike jobs considered of low status. As a result, foreign labour in Kuwait became indispensable to all sectors of the Kuwaiti economy. It was estimated that foreign workforce represented 79% of the professional and technical workers while in the labouring and manufacturing groups account for 92%.
This situation underscored the distinction between the Kuwaiti and the non-Kuwaiti citizen. Through immigration policies such as deportation and termination of contracts, the vulnerability of foreign population was highlighted. Govern-ment policies also insured that non-nationals had inferior rights to Kuwaitis in all areas. They were paid less wages for the same work and not entitled to welfare and retirement benefits at all. They had poorer housing and barred from owning real property.
It was almost impossible for a non-Kuwaiti to gain citizenship and currently tough residence laws are being implemented limiting the maximum period of stay for non-Arabs to 10 years and the validity of work permits for non-national to two years. Residential status of foreign workers varies among Arab and Asian workers. The Palestinians and Jordanian workers who were more established and long residents are given preferential treatment while the Asian workers, particularly the latest arrivals, were constantly replaced by new compatriot contract workers. Their temporary contract worker status is maintained and strictly observed.
In contrast, the Jordanian society has been shaped by mobile population flows both in and out of the country. Its sensitive geographical location, sharing a border with Israel, led to accommodation provided many Palestinian refugees seeking sanctuaries in the Jordanian territory. According to an estimate, about 60% of its population streamed from the refugee populations. The 1967 War and its proximity to the oil rich states in the region were the reasons why Jordanians were attracted to leave their country for a greener pasture in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia.
The population movement consisted of Jordanian nationals, including naturalised Palestinian) to the oil-rich states; the return of temporary Jordanian migrants from the oil richstates; the migration of Arab and Asian labour as replacement labour into Jordan; and the movement of West Bank and Gazan Palestinians to the East Bank seeking temporary employment or settlement in Jordan.
The acceleration of Jordanian migration to the Gulf States resulted to a vacuum of about 47% of Jordan domestic work force and this required replacement labour. Foreign work force in Jordan consisted of 84%, mostly Egyptians, while Asian workers were estimated at 15% of the foreign work force. Asian workers in Jordan are generally better paid and have higher occupational status jobs than the Arab migrant workers. Arab workers earn only half the average wage of Asian workers and a third of European workers’ wages. There is no dual wage structure for nationals and non-nationals.
As in Kuwait, foreign workforce, including Filipinos, appeared to be a long term feature of the Jordanian economy despite the returned of Jordanian migrants from the Gulf. Occupation stratification in Jordan has been reinforced by racial and national categories. Foreign labour cater to fill unwanted jobs and this situation will continue, particularly so that migrant labour has reduced wages. The expansion of tourism, transport and domestic service industries provided an incentive for Asian foreign worker to stay longer in Jordan.
Citizenship or the nationality of the worker will continue to play a dominant part in the future of foreign workers in the Middle East, as long as development remains primarily focused on consumption (infra-structure, urban development, lifestyles) and not production (industry). Because of this, foreign, particularly Asian workers, will continue to be strictly regulated. The role of citizenship or nationality in the Middle East labour market is quite evident in the continuing segmentation of labour markets and as a way to control foreign working classes.
Source: http://www.mnnetherlands.com/dir/_page/100792/
No comments:
Post a Comment