|
|
|
|
|
by contingencies
4342 days ago
|
|
Let's break this down. You've called drafting migrant workers from third world countries defensible because they are paid more than in third world countries, and you used the euphemism "available pool of talent" to describe base rate unskilled labour. What happens to these people if they have an accident? I'm willing to bet they don't get invited to a Singaporean hospital and kept on for two years while they recover. What happens if they want to form a labour union? I'm willing to bet their visa is not renewed. What happens if they have an argument with an employer? I'm willing to bet they're sent packing immediately with no opportunity to find alternative work or access social services. These are only basic examples of security that people deserve in equal measure. A society that relies upon the exploitation of others is not a sustainable or just society, even if everyone in town agrees not to mention or think about the reality of the situation or if there are worse places in the world. |
|
The pre-FDR position (to which I subscribe) considers individual rights to define the right to the pursuit of happiness, which ends up really being about property rights (that is, the right to keep what I have earned by exchanging my time and effort against financial or other compensation). These "rights" aren't magically obtained, they are earned by a population that first gains independence from its masters, and then structures its government not to set up new masters. Two examples are the creation of the USA, and Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
The "rights" you are arguing for imply a redefinition of "rights" that loosely say "a claim of a base level of happiness to be defined separately" (and then called health services, insurance, food, shelter, etc.). The part of the definition left out is "paid by whom". These "rights" are an infringement of true rights since they naturally imply that these resources will be taken from those who have them in order to be redistributed to those who do not. I moved halfway across the world specifically in protest against such a system (since my voting options were limited anyway). In my experience, those who advocate for FDR Bill of Rights type "rights" are impossible to debate with, because the chasm is philosophical. So I doubt we will ever agree.
From my point of view, even though they are acting in their self interest, the Singaporeans are doing Asia a great favour by sharing their wealth with those who did not take control of their country and set up institutions that protect individual rights, by making labour opportunities available to those outside the island. It is most definitely a "just" system (since foreign workers are protected under Singaporean law against infringements of their individual rights) and seems to be sustainable enough, January riots excepted (and those happened in part because of foreign workers having exactly the same rights, such as roaming around drunk, as the rest of the island).
[Regarding healthcare, I don't know about construction workers, but maids are covered by their employer as part of the package usually. It's very cheap here, since the government hasn't meddled with the insurance and healthcare industries. My health insurance is about a tenth of the US equivalent.]