philippine migration policy: dilemmas of a crisis

Philippine Migration Policy: Dilemmas of a CrisisAuthor(s): Graziano BATTISTELLASource: Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol. 14, No. 1 (April 1999), pp. 229-248Published by: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41057020 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 02:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:12:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iseas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41057020?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SOJOURN Vol. 14, No. 1 (1999), pp. 229-48

Philippine Migration Policy: Dilemmas of a Crisis

Graziano BATTISTELLA

This paper first reviews the historical development of Filipino migration policy since the early 1970s, with the emphasis shifting from labour export to migration management and the privatization of migration. The main trends of migration in the 1990s are then documented, indicat- ing an increase of Filipino migration to Asian countries, the decrease of first-time overseas workers, and the increase of female migration. The paper then focuses on the dilemmas posed by the economic crisis, such as over redeployment or re-integration, deployment or protection, and issues of deregulation and employment conditions. The paper con- cludes with an assessment of the limited efficacy and relevance of migration policies in the Philippines, and calls for a regional approach to the issue.

State migration policy indicates the official approach and the various initiatives that a country takes with regard to migration. Sometimes the policy is clearly spelt out; often it can be inferred from the various measures of the government towards migration. Such measures can show coherence or denote a hiatus with official statements. There are cases in which the policy has been determined by legislation; but there also cases in which administrative action has determined the policy without public discussion through the legislative process. Also, while migration refers both to emigration and immigration, attention is often centred on one aspect, depending on what is predominant at a particular time. Thus countries are considered mainly countries of origin or receiving countries on the basis of the predominant direction of the flow. Some countries, however, particularly Malaysia and Thailand, constitute an example of both countries of origin and receiving countries, where migration policy must be articulated for both aspects.



230 Graziano BATTISTELU'

The Philippines is not exempt from immigration. A number of im-

migrants, particularly from China and India, have entered the country for several years, sometimes first as simple tourists and then over-staying their visas. For better control of irregular "aliens" in the Philippines, the Alien Social Integration Act was passed in June 1995, but it was ended in 30 June 1997. Its results have been considered poor since only 5,947 applied out of an estimated 25,000 potential applicants, and only 3,378 were approved for permanent status {Philippine Daily Inquirer, 29 De- cember 1997). Also, the Philippines is a transit country for refugees, particularly those from Sri Lanka seeking resettlement elsewhere.

It is the emigration aspect which is particularly relevant in the Phil-

ippines. More than 60,000 Filipinos go abroad every year as immigrants to countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, while more than 700,000 go abroad as migrant workers. Thus, in terms of sheer size, the Philippines can be considered one of the top emigration countries in the world. It is, therefore, migration policy from the perspective of a

country of origin that is relevant and that will be examined in this report.

Historical Background of Filipino Migration Policy

Labour Export The Philippine labour migration policy began with the well-known intent of participating in the construction projects in the Middle East in the early 1970s. It found its highest formulation in the Labor Code issued by President Marcos in 1974 (PD442), and was clearly aimed at

promoting overseas employment (and implicitly at expanding the market for overseas Filipinos) as well as ensuring "the best possible terms and conditions of employment" (Art. 17.2) for them. The implementation of the policy was given to the Overseas Employment Develop- ment Board (OEDB) and the National Seamen Board (NSB). It also created the Welfare and Training Fund, which later (1977) became the Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers. The policy also envisioned a

government-to-government handling of the overseas labour, the phase- out in four years of the existing private recruiting agencies, the ban on direct hiring by foreign employers, and mandatory remittances.



Philippine Migration Policy: Dilemmas of a Crisis 231

Managing Labour Migration In a second phase (1978), the government relinquished most of the recruiting activities to the private sector, with recruiting agencies allowed to operate again, and maintained for itself a regulatory and supervisory role (Asis 1992). The institutions were reshuffled, with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) taking over the functions of OEDB and NSB in 1982, while the Overseas Workers Wel- fare Administration (OWWA) was the new name for the restructured Welfare Fund (1987).

Although these policy decisions illustrate the increasing intention of the government to adopt a managing role in overseas labour, its involvement with market development betrays its direct interest in the expan- sion of the overseas labour programme (Battistella 1995). Such interest responds to the objective of maximizing the benefits of migration and minimizing its costs. Among the benefits, reducing unemployment and obtaining foreign currency fare prominently.

Endless discussion has taken place on whether the government is actually exporting people or simply regulating an exodus which would take place regardless of government involvement. The large number of people going abroad without proper documentation testifies to the limited responsibility of the government in generating the outflow of workers. At the same time, direct involvement of the government with foreign organizations (for example, discussions with Arab countries after the Gulf War or with East Asian countries) to ensure a favourable in- take of Filipino workers indicates that government action has a direct and indirect impact on the outflow of people. Therefore, migration management is also to be understood as labour export. In fact, when the outflow of workers reaches over 700,000 and the remittances collected through official channels are a huge 5.7 billion as in 1997 - Table 1 - it is impossible to consider the government as a neutral observer.

Towards the Privatization of Migration The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (RA 8042) constituted the highest point of discussion and revision of a migration policy that has already been in place for twenty years. The law consid-



232 Graziano BATTISTELLJ'

Table 1 Remittances of Overseas Filipino Workers,

1990-97 (thousand US$)

Year Remittance

1990 1,181,075 1991 1,500,291 1992 2,202,382 1993 2,229,582 1994 2,940,272 1995 3,868,378 1996 4,306,641 1997 5,741,835

Source: Foreign Exchange Department, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

ers migration within the framework of development and states that overseas labour should not be taken as a tool for development. This amounts to a declaration that the government does not export labour. Conse- quently, the act provides several policy measures to ensure the protection of the Filipino workers abroad. However, some of the policies are mostly declaratory with little hope for implementation, such as the policy to deploy migrants only to countries that ensure protection and the policy to deploy only skilled workers.

The law also reflects the particular thinking of the time, with a strong direction towards increased economic liberalism. A corollary of such thinking is the diminished role of the government in favour of the market. Therefore, the law mandates that the government cease its regulatory functions. The design of the deregulation plan is still under discussion. However, several measures have been taken in the form of department orders, which suggests a move towards the privatization of migration (Battistella 1998). First, a new policy on placement fees has been adopted whereby agencies are allowed to charge workers one- month salary for their services. Second, the full disclosure policy has been adopted, which leaves the contractual negotiation to the private agreement between worker and agent. Third, programmes have been drafted for the preparation of workers intending to go overseas.




Trends of Filipino Migration in the 1990s

One trend pertains to fluctuations of migration flows, in which the current decade has witnessed three major moments. First was the Gulf War of 1991 and the repatriation of approximately 30,000 workers, mainly from Kuwait. Such repatriation, however, was quickly offset by an increased deployment in the final months of 1991 and accounted for a sudden increase of 46 per cent in total deployment over the previous year. Deployment of overseas workers reached its peak in 1994, with most of the increase absorbed by Saudi Arabia. Second was the decline of deployment by 13 per cent in 1995. This was mostly set off by the adverse climate towards overseas labour created by the public outcry over the hanging of Flor Contemplación, a Filipina domestic helper found guilty of murder in Singapore. Third is the increase by 1 5 per cent in 1997 (Table 2). Such an increase has occurred particularly in Asia, while the Middle East has continued to decline as a result of decreasing salaries and also of the preference-to-nationals policy. In 1997, Filipinos deployed in Asia for the first time outnumbered Filipinos deployed in the Middle East (Table 3).

Another trend, clearly visible through the 1990s, has been the constant decrease since 1991 of workers going abroad for the first time, and the constant increase of workers renewing their contracts. The small reversed trend in 1997, when newly hired migrants also increased (8 per cent), remained at a lower magnitude then the increase of rehired workers (21 per cent) (Table 2). In general this indicates that new job open- ings are not numerous. At the same time, it indicates that migrants are prolonging their time abroad, both because accumulation of savings takes longer, due to increasing migration costs and decreasing salaries, and because replacement of workers is expensive for employers.

Deployment to specific countries has also witnessed some dramatic changes. Saudi Arabia, although it remains the number one destination for Filipinos, absorbed only 100,000 Filipinos in 1997, which was less than in 1992. At the same time, Taiwan, which was not a destination country in the 1980s, has within a few years become the number three destination after Hong Kong. Anxieties over political changes in Hong



234 Graziano BATTISTELLA

¿

2 •a

« §

Í o g

-o

1 "o. <u Q

VO t' ON 00 Cn q¿ (' Cn CN «"ì °0 vo q¿ g

Cn t' CN <N K 00 ^ '~l Vf m <N <*N 00 C

I' vtn ̂ N ^ i- i <u e u

CN m ^ 0N Cn c Vo <N m <*'. ̂ VO o Vo C' ^1 ̂ ^ ^ °> ̂ 1 'S o

cn o Hf ^d K in 2 '- ' 'O 00 ^ K N bJQ vû^r ̂ ^ ^ ^ "g

i^ CN CN ̂ ô C} o rt i^

ci o vq ^ <^> ̂o ^ -jg

rt

CN v^ OO" O' C' i/-^ O ^ irs oo ^ Ô vo °° Ô Nf ^N °S ^h X

csj vo ^ ^ ô "a, sth o (n ^ r^ n a sth 5s ô (n (N ̂ K r^ w^ en g o-N o' »n Po Vd xf «

r' irs <N <N ^ S et -d -d

O (N ¡A K M J3

<^ ^" d y ip in 3 'D yr' <N °N «- ' C

c o

Ss ^ vq <N > oo^ g GN ' VO ON N pd VO -g '- ' oo in O' vn cn .5 V.T) xfi r'j r^ ^ g

c' o K .^ o' e £ © <N W) O' tv. g es in on ̂ K in ^ ^ r-< 00 ^> 00 (N -2

vo xf ^ ^ ^h a,

tq Í5

in m 5N r*i (N S O ON 00 > > »-H g GN O 00 ON O' (S u ON ^" ^" K Vî h J^ "-1 X^ CO "^ ^ ^h CJ

v^ fTi <N *^ ^h 5J g "a. Oh

lis -s I nj *-i ». ^j< Ci wJ

CTs I

O G' ON

C O '5b &

I m y

rt o H u

eS -d

J o c

!&■

i o "& Û

ncnoo^nooo t' r' rH(NiA(NXfN00O (N on in rH q ^ q c' (N vq <n <^ en »A N oî -h rn" in ri o' °5

rs (N in ^

w NfOOOOCN^t^CNGN CO C

VT3 !7'ONO(NN^00 in r^ C^ xfcTirnxfíNinooinvo ^ on ri ^ oo ^ »-H 1-T n^ r-T Nt g ^ l' '-h (N VO 00 .2

iA^C'C'O00C'N ^h ^

GN vq t' ^ (N en ro © t' vq .S CN cf? VO fO O V »h N «h 00 -û r~i v^,-!^^ inoo j5

inommrîn^xf1 vo ^. ^ incNOôocsoov.0 (N ^.

^ ^ g' (N »-H vq in en es ^ vn <n -ä CN rnvvf^ri'-^vO'-ôó't'in o- ^H ONrH rH 00 ^fVO g i- i cN in n u

ininoorninrôcN cn -S CO tNO(N(NNOC'H h-- JZ os ^l «N (N ^f cn in oo cn oo^ "g Cn cN 00 CN en CN ̂ 00 ^ O -G r-H VOr^r-HO Xfin .2 -h m m 3

Oh

ovocNO^CN^fcn in k. 3 -^ i-Hhv.'- iCnovovocn in «,î CN ^ h> "Ì ^ ^ ^ H, °. ^ UO Cn fsÍN^cN^'Ô^'-^'-^ri Cn *-> 'C f-H ^r-I^N^ ^HfTiSÎ '2 (11

T- i rn in . û

t« fi ^cNcnvoinN^CNt^ o í4-o ^h VOCNt'incNt'©VO VD CC^ ^h

Cn G^vOcr},'~l0°c<lN:íllO °Í ^^ cn ^(-sfenenri'-^'-^ri cn °c r^ ^^Ô ^h^hOO "c3 « ^ rn HT C g o x

'5b o

mooi'mocN© m wg O NVO WMA h v| 00 00 rtrrj CN rÌt^lOO0,v'""tGNC<ì O® "Oô CNr-ôcÑv^Too rC xf 2o^ '- ' Cn h m <p. % m g g

S2 S S -£ CL, 2 o £

•Pillili -a 11




Kong as well as the effects of economic crisis were reflected in excep- tional deployment in the first months of 1997, and a sudden decline afterwards. Of the top ten countries of deployment, only two are cur- rently from the Middle East and one European country is again among the top ten.

The breakdown by occupation and gender, available only for the newly hired, reveals that the proportion of women over men is increas-

ing. Although there are some variations along the years, it appears that

Filipino migrants are employed mainly as labourers, service workers, and professionals. Bearing in mind that service workers are mainly domestic workers and that entertainers normally constitute at least 50 per cent of professional workers, a broad idea of the major jobs and skills Fili-

pinos hold abroad can be obtained (Table 4). Specifically, the migration of entertainers has picked up again, after the decline in 1995, when ballet skills were imposed among the requirements to obtain the permis- sion to go abroad. The reversal in 1997 can also be explained by the

granting of exemptions from some requirements, particularly the waiver on the minimum age of twenty-one.

A final trend that has emerged in the 1990s is the increase of remittances. The increase, which was already evident in 1994, the year of the

highest deployment of Filipino migrants, experienced an unexpected surge in the following years. This surge cannot be explained by the increase of people abroad nor by the increase of salaries earned by migrants alone. Two other factors account for such increase: the improved capac- ity of banks to channel remittances home; and the increased confidence of Filipinos (not just migrants) abroad on the Philippine economy and the attractiveness of investments in the country.

Dilemmas of a Crisis

The current financial and economic crisis in Asia looms large in any projection of future developments in migration flows. Reports of re- trenchment and repatriation have already appeared, although actual implementation is still contained. It appears that Filipino trainees in Korea are expected to return, as well as professionals from Indonesia




ON

ci GN

3 co

o e 'a.

o o

g I "Eh Q

# cn ̂ en <N m o

S 00 ̂ O vAxr O fS > ifi 00 O N O

J¿ ^ VA co (N V0 K °N rn rrÇ r-T VA <N t^ ^ *-< 00 CN

(N 00

o 00CNO(Nr-Hr-H^Kot'(N O CN gv ,- i Nf ^ m o r-1

es iaKoo i7'oo inÔ^rN mm *-i r^ T-H . lApOVOÔfO^SPvîN^^ ^ ^

¡Z; vd °o co t-h" xf < V lA en lA .9 cn^. 00Ô^l' O ä M .1 r-HÔiNr-HOO^SVAOOOO O .-H

^CN*""-! CD <N co O .-H tí ï

§5 VO>MVOOVO|^^(SNCN O ^ U Ü. . N fn lA 00 C' O v^ .^ N »A ̂ h en ^

¿ en crj en ri ^ r$ q? ^ <*£ -û Nf(N 00^*^00 ^h -T3

'a,

^ô^r-Hmop>orno o o

c' oo JN iAG'^ nô oo^vo co vo -d r-H . h0'mO00^°02POhO 00 2 O (N^cnNfNCN^^MOO^r C' -g

« g, tí

« î t-Î . OVAOOt'iA>00OÔO CN .S

O rH<i^XlAH>00NÎA 1-1 g ¡Z¡ vdN1 en cN C7N ^ K r-ï cN vd -o

V0 ^ 00 K CN lA <

i ^CN1^ en0^ en °^ 1-1 "cL

s I O oo <>» ̂ es N ^ K ^ Cn in 'D »a âo £ CN O' ^ CN CN po N ,h" ̂ " o ö

t'> OOÂ^CN ^0 > CN O

<u

& 1 -S '§ |"S « g

llilîiillli cofín <,Uooco < j 4i H i oo cofín <,Uooco < j 4i H oo




where their salary, paid in U.S. dollars, has become unsustainable for

private companies. The Philippines itself might not be hit as severely as other countries - such as Indonesia - by the crisis, bearing in mind that most Filipinos in Asia are not deployed in countries which suffered most from currency devaluation (Table 5). Perhaps the most affected will be the 38,000 workers in Korea. As for the over 500,000 estimated in Malaysia, most of them are in Sabah where they have negotiated a settlement in a variety of occupations and are not necessarily employed in the critical sectors such as construction. Domestic workers will be affected indirectly, as a result of reduced earnings and lay-offs of women workers. In Malaysia, new rules applied to the sector - Filipina domestic workers can be hired only by employers earning at least RM 10,000 - are obviously intended to shield Malaysian households from employ- ing Filipina workers. However, market forces operate such that Filipina domestic workers continue to be hired particularly in households of Western, Indian, or Chinese origin. In addition, repatriating migrant workers might not relieve unemployment for local workers, since mi-

grants are employed in a labour market of undesirable jobs for which there is little competition from national workers. Employers might oppose the repatriation of migrant workers because hiring of local work-

Table 5 Deployment of Overseas Filipino Workers

in Asian Countries, 1 996-97

Country 1996 1997 Estimated Stock*

Brunei 7,651 9,594 n.a Hong Kong 43,861 78,513 125,000 Indonesia 1,497 2,031 n.a. Japan 20,183 33,226 70,000 Korea 2,968 3,647 38,146 Malaysia 12,340 13,581 501,136 Singapore 15,087 16,055 65,149 Taiwan 65,464 72,748 108,000 Thailand 916 1,269 n.a.

n.a. = Not available. * Including undocumented stock.

Source: Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, unpublished data, 1998.




ers would increase the costs of labour {Far Eastern Economic Review, 22 January 1998). Considering all the possible aspects of the crisis on mi-

gration, one study has projected a decrease of 94,400 Filipino workers in Asian countries by the end of 1999 (Bohning 1998), although it is not clear if it will be the result of large repatriation or of diminished deployment. Data on migration in the second part of 1997 hint that the latter might be the case.

Dilemmas originating from the crisis are not entirely new issues. The crisis simply exacerbates issues that have already been raised by migration policy in the Philippines. To Re-Deploy or to Re-Integrate? Given the possibility of repatriation of thousands of migrants, the Phil- ippines will have to decide whether to explore other possibilities abroad or to re-integrate the migrants in the domestic labour market. Appar- ently, the direction has already been set in early 1998 when President Ramos invited the Filipinos to go where jobs beckon, and cited the Middle East as a place where there is "continuous demand for our man-

power" {Straits Times, 8 January 1998). The President had not asked

migrants to come home, well aware that unemployment and underem- ployment remained high and were set to grow because of the economic crisis. From the perspective of political imagination, the "new heroes" were not welcomed home, and were required instead to continue their "heroic" efforts abroad. The election climate then was also unpropitious for the return of unemployed migrant workers, since it would tarnish the performance of the Ramos administration and damage the electoral

possibilities of administration candidates. More specifically, the POEA has since 1998 reformulated its work plan for overseas employment, advising that workers opt for re-negotiation of contracts "as long as terms are acceptable to workers and approved by the Philippine Depart- ment of Labour and Employment (DOLE)" (POEA 1998).

To Deploy or to Protect?

The dilemma appears to be a false one since it should be possible to de-

ploy and protect workers at the same time. In reality, however, the con- flict emerges time after time, and most often the result is in favour of




deployment over protection. Bans of deployment towards some countries have been imposed several times (for instance, to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Singapore). However, they have always proven ineffective and were eventually lifted. (The ban on deployment of domestic workers to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, imposed after the Flor Contemplación case, was lifted in September, on the occasion of President Ramos visit to those countries (Asian Migration News, 30 September 1997). The measure contained in RA 8042 to deploy only to countries that ensure protection is practically meaningless since it allows for deployment to countries that are "taking positive, concrete measures to protect the rights of migrant workers" (Sec. 4d). The question is: who is not?

The measure to deploy only skilled workers has been interpreted not to exclude occupations considered unskilled (such as domestic work) but to ensure that migrants possess personal skills to cope with possible crisis. Such skills have been defined as basic literacy, experience, and training, which is another way of saying that deployment of unskilled workers will continue. Thus, protection has remained in the hands of the migrants themselves and of normal diplomatic interaction.

The Philippines has been at the forefront of diplomatic action to further the international dialogue and improve legislation for migrants, but with limited success. Migrants remain an expendable commodity in many receiving countries and the current crisis is confirming it. Re- ceiving countries are sending migrants home and countries of origin cannot afford to accept them. Pressures from the current crisis to alle- viate unemployment and increase remittances will prevail over potential dangers. It is significant that the DOLE has asked the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to lift the travel advisory discouraging migration to risky countries, such as Algeria, where the demand for construction workers from foreign-based construction firms is increasing (Phil- ippine Daily Inquirer, 1 1 January 1998). Such direction is confirmed by the intention of POEA to push for legislation "to allow flexibility in the implementation of specific provisions of RA 8042 restricting overseas employment without sacrificing welfare and protection of OFWs" (POEA 1998). Such recommendation is obviously intended to weaken the protection provisions in RA 8042, confirming that when costs and




benefits are assessed in migration, it appears that in the eyes of both government and migrants, benetits prevail, and costs may come only later.

To Deregulate What?

RA 8042 mandates deregulation within six years (thus, to take effect in the year 2001). However, it does not specify what aspects should be

deregulated. Accreditation of agencies, contract processing rules, and renewal of licences are among the aspects being considered for deregulation (POEA 1998). However, it is hard to imagine a totally unregu- lated recruitment sector, with no guarantees required of employment agents. Recently, for instance, the government of the United Kingdom, a country where anybody can set himself up as an immigration adviser, has decided to establish a strict system of regulation for agents {Daily Telegraph, 17 December 1997). Agents themselves are against a total lib- eralization of the profession, also for fear of competition from new players (Zipagan-Banawis 1997).

It is also not clear whether abandoning contract processing rules will

imply discontinuing the standard employment contract, which contains measures concerning wage and working conditions and which is determined by the POEA. The direction already taken is precisely to discon- tinue the involvement of the government in setting the terms and conditions of the contract and to allow these to be negotiated by the

migrant, the agent, and the employer. In fact, RA 8042 (Sec. 29) looks at a time in which "migration of workers becomes strictly a matter between the worker and his foreign employer". The practical implementation of such policy has originated a practice that goes under the name of "full disclosure". It entails that the agent presents all the facts, includ-

ing true wages, working conditions and fees, to the migrant, and the

migrant reveals his/her true skills and qualifications. Such negotiation will then lead to the signing of the contract, which should reflect the true working conditions the migrant can expect to receive when abroad. Thus, as per admission of recruiting agents, perhaps 50 per cent of the

migrants are aware that the standard labour contract deposited with the POEA has no validity, and will be substituted by another contract with




different conditions, as presented to them by the agent. This practice of contract substitution, which constitutes violation of recruitment prac- tices, is considered unavoidable by the agents, who claim that the conditions set by the POEA are no longer realistic, since the market has al-

ready lowered the salary that will accrue to migrants. While appearing to do away with hypocrisy, full disclosure is also un-

conditional surrender to the market. In the market, the relation between worker and employer is never "strictly a matter between the worker and his foreign employer" but is always mediated by agents, both in the

country of origin and in the receiving country, and agents are mostly on the side of employers rather than migrants. Also, the playing field is hardly level because migrants are under severe constraints and the lack of real alternatives. In addition, migrants are hardly allowed to union- ize and protect their interests so that, particularly in the case of domestic workers, they are confined to an unequal relationship with the employer.

The dilemma for the government is whether the market will obtain better conditions for migrants or whether a standard employment contract should still be imposed and how it can be respected. Whether to limit the standard employment contract to working conditions or to also establish minimum wages poses yet another dilemma. The one-month

placement fee was demanded by recruiters as an incentive for them to

procure better contracts for workers. However, the impression is that results have not been encouraging. Having to face both local and international competition, agents are mostly interested in deploying as many people as possible, rather than improving the terms of contract.

While planning for deregulation, specifically in the form of full disclosure, the government of the Philippines is not abandoning a heavy involvement in setting the course of migration. In fact, the Philippines was active in a concerted action taken with some governments from South and Southeast Asia in Colombo in 1997 to reach an agreement on minimum conditions to be included in all standard employment contracts. Such action, if ratified, would constitute an important inter- vention in the market, because it would no longer allow employers and agents to lower standards in an endless race to the bottom.




What Re-Integration?

Re-integration occurs normally in undetected ways. While strict administrative requirements regulate departure, practically nothing is estab- lished for returnees. Previous crises, such as the Gulf War, have warned on the possibility of large and sudden repatriations. Contingency plans have been formulated for crisis situations such as the potential massive return of migrants from Hong Kong in 1997. In reality, however, the only recent successful repatriation was of Filipino workers from Cam- bodia, but their number was small. Massive returns would place a strain on all institutions. Most likely, such massive returns will not occur, and not at the same time. Certainly, the current administration is not ex-

pecting it, since only PI 00 million have been allocated for helping the return of migrants without an airfare {Philippine Daily Inquirer, 18 Janu- ary 1998). RA 8042 has mandated the establishment of a Replacement and Monitoring Center for the purpose of facilitating the re-integration of returnees. However, after the inauguration, very little has been known about the Center. Other programmes implemented by the OWWA - livelihood loans, social re-integration to cope with psychological difficulties, scholarships - are co-ordinated by the Kabuhayan (Livelihood) 2000.The programme intends to provide referral for assistance in en-

trepreneurial services, investments, and training. However, the performance of Kabuhayan 2000 has been limited; also, the programme is not

fully functioning. In designing programmes for re-integration, political and practical

difficulties have to be kept in mind. Politically, it is difficult to deal with the charge of discrimination in favour of returning migrants over the

unemployed population in the country. After all, migrants are already perceived as privileged workers. Practically, it is difficult to reach out to a dispersed population. Banking on previous success, as the experience of Europe has shown, programmes should be designed by local entities since they have a better chance to succeed than programmes prepared by national agencies. Furthermore, an information service on skills and

opportunities should be provided since it is an indispensable instrument to help returning migrants (Battistella 1997).




What Information to Migrants?

Progressive deregulation has redefined the role of the government in migration as provider of information and protection. With regard to information, the Philippines has set the example for countries of origin, particularly with its Pre-Departure Orientation Seminar, which has been mandatory since 1983. Nevertheless, the government programme has been criticized as insufficient because it could not help in the migrant decision-making process. For this reason, the programme is under review and studies are recommending a multi-stage process involving local administrations, the employment agencies, and the non-governmen- tal organizations (NGOs) at various points in time, with players contributing according to their area of competence (Asis 1997).

The Philippines is also testing the possibility of including information and discussion on migration in the education curriculum. The implementation of the programme might prove difficult, although the intention is to ensure that workers have the right information before they make the decision to migrate. At the same time, it is well known that migrants rely on personal networks for decision-making, even though information from personal networks can be very flawed, as friends and relatives tend to depict their own experience as more successful than it was. Some suspicion remains among entities involved in the process. Employment agencies view NGOs as discouraging migration and diminishing their earnings. NGOs view agents as only interested in profit-making, regardless of what happens to the migrants. The government posts appropriate warnings, but it cannot hide its interest in reducing unemployment and increasing foreign exchange. Migrants themselves process the information they receive according to their own interests. It is possible that in times of crisis, warnings might go un- heeded in favour of the possibility of gainful employment. For this reason, there should be more, rather than less, information available to potential migrants in the present crisis.

In the context of the above dilemmas which the current crisis has exacerbated, the government has gone ahead to aggressively increase deployment, encourage migrants to adapt to lesser terms to keep their




jobs, explore new markets previously avoided as potentially dangerous, and remove possible legal obstacles deriving from coherent interpreta- tion of the Migrant Workers Act. All this is undertaken with the stated intention of not lowering protection for workers. However, it appears difficult to reconcile both additional migration and additional protection in this time of crisis.

The Efficacy of Migration Policies

Migration policies are constantly modified to adapt to changing economic demands, public perceptions, migration pressures, and migration flows. However, there is a widespread impression that migration policies are rather ineffective. Such impression is widespread in receiving countries, where attempts to select and control inflows have failed, giv- ing rise to a large number of irregular migrants (Cornelius et al. 1994). Likewise, policies of countries of origin have not been very effective ei- ther. Less interested in controlling the outflow of migrants, such policies have targeted regulation, protection, welfare, and re-integration as priorities. However, one can only speak of limited success in all these aspects. Illegal recruiters have flourished, and for the few who have been convicted, many more remain in operation. Abuse against migrants has continued and migration is an experience with some gains but also high costs and risks. Upon return, migrants are left on their own in the re- adjustment process, and for many of them the only solution is to go abroad again. To complement government efforts, civil society has in- tervened through migrant associations and NGOs. Their activities have been helpful thus far, but only for a small number of migrants.

In assessing the limited efficacy of migration policies, one aspect appears crucial. Migration is basically a transnational experience, while migration policies are strictly a national endeavour. The lack of dialogue and co-operation among countries over migration issues is puzzling. The current crisis is exposing in a merciless way that in an integrated world the woes of a few become the problem of all. Migration must become a common concern in the region and migration policies must become co-ordinated policies among the interested countries, lest international




relations will be affected. Specifically, the link between migration and security appears relevant. Massive unemployment will constitute the

major threat to peace and order within countries. Migrants in receiv-

ing countries, whether employed or unemployed, will easily become the

scapegoat of angry masses. At the same time, dumping unemployed workers on an already difficult situation will not be considered a friendly gesture.

In the light of the globalization of the economy and the emerging commodification of labour migration, there is little doubt that coop- eration among nations will become increasingly critical to the reso- lution of immigration issues. (United Nations 1998)

Analysis of migration policies must also improve. Recent studies have indicated that policies might be ineffective because they are based on the wrong approach or on the wrong unit of analysis. In the case of the United States, policies have been based on the neo-liberal economic approach, and consequent action of increasing control and diminishing benefits to reduce the inflow of irregular migrants has been unsuccess- ful (Massey and Espinosa 1997). In other cases, the national scenario is considered when in fact it is the local context which determines the characteristics of migration policy and which has an important influence on national leadership (Money 1997). In the case of the Philippines as a labour-sending country, an empirical assessment of migration policies has been attempted (Santo Tomas 1998) but it needs to be refined.

The Politics of Migration Policies

It is difficult to ascertain the relevance of migration in Philippine politics. Only three years ago (in 1995), at the height of the election campaign (although not a presidential election) the case of Flor Contem- plación exploded and migration was catapulted to the forefront of political discussion. Diplomatic relations with Singapore were strained, two members of the cabinet were sacrificed to public opinion and RA 8042 was fast-tracked through the legislative process. Three years later, migration was never mentioned during the campaign for presidential elections. The bill on absentee voting was stalled in the Senate because




of little agreement over the possibility of ensuring the integrity of the vote of Filipinos overseas, and the issue was never debated during the

campaign. Efforts by migrant NGOs to dialogue with presidential candidates or to elicit their views on migration issues were ignored by most candidates. Migration was mentioned incidentally only because Sarah

Balabagan, the Filipina saved from capital punishment in the United Arab Emirates, used her popularity to campaign for a senatorial candi- date. Six parties were hastily formed under the issue of overseas work to participate in the elections under the party list system (a new but ill- understood mechanism to improve the representation of sectoral con- cerns). But even these parties did not succeed in generating public discussion on migration issues.

Migration is not really perceived as a major issue in Philippine politics. Occasionally a sad story makes headline news, only to be soon rel-

egated to oblivion. In the general perception, migrants are among the

lucky ones who have a job and often a well-paying one, compared with local workers. Civil servants also perceive that migrants are even better

protected than local workers. For these reasons, re-integration programmes are particularly difficult to sell to the general public. Further- more, although the law mandates that the protection of migrants should be accorded the highest priority by Philippine missions abroad, this is, at best, lip service. Migration maintains its relevance in international relations since these can be easily strained over situations involving mi-

grants. Nevertheless, such situations do not sufficiently alter the policy directions of interacting countries. To maintain good relations with

receiving countries, countries of origin can only raise feeble objections over unilateral changes of policies. The lack of success in establishing bilateral agreements between countries of origin and receiving countries attests to the continuing challenge to give migration the proper place in international relations. The absence of migration in the agenda of re-

gional institutions indicates that the unilateral approach is still the ac-

cepted way to manage migration in the region.




NOTE

This report is a revised version of the paper presented at the workshop on Migrations in Contemporary Southeast Asia organized by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore on 22-23 January 1998 and funded by the Ford Foundation. It is one of five country reports (covering Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines) which focus on the theme of state responses to migration. As far as possible, the report has been revised and updated to keep abreast of rapid developments arising from the economic crises affecting the region. However, for a more recent account of the impact of the crisis on migration, see Battistella and Asis (1999).

REFERENCES

Asis, Maruja. "The Overseas Employment Program Policy". In Philippine Labor Migration: Impact and Policy, edited by Graziano Battistella and Anthony Paganoni. Quezon City: Scalabrini Migration Center, 1992.

"Pre-Departure Information Programs for Migrant Workers". Quezon City: Scalabrini Migration Center, 1997.

Battistella, Graziano. "Philippine Overseas Labour: From Export to Management". ASEAN Economic Bulletin 12, no. 2 (November 1995).

. "Reintegration of Migrants: Overview and Issues from the Philippine Experience". Paper presented at the IUSSP Conference on International Mi- gration at Century's End: Trends and Issues, Barcelona, 7-10 May 1997.

The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 and Migration Management". In Filipino Workers on the Move: Trends, Dilemmas and Policy Options, edited by Benjamin V. Cariño. Diliman: Philippine Migration Re- search Network, 1998.

Battistella, Graziano and Maruja M.B. Asis. The Crisis and Migration in Asia. Quezon City: Scalabrini Migration Center, 1999.

Bohning, Roger. "Conceptualizing and Simulating the Impact of the Asian Crisis on Filipinos' Employment Opportunities Abroad". Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 7, nos. 2-3 (1998).

Cornelius, Wayne A., Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifield. Controlling Immi- gration: A Global Perspective. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 1994.

Massey, Douglas and Kristin E. Espinosa. What s Driving Mexico-U.S. Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Analysis". American Journal of Sociology 102, no. 4 (1997).

Money, Jannette. "The Political Geography of Immigration Control". International Organization 51, no. 4 (1997).




Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). "Overseas Employment Sector: 1998 Reformulated Workplan". Mimeographed. 1998.

Santos Tomas, Patricia. "Enhancing the Capabilities of Emigration Countries to Protect Men and Women Destined for Low-Skilled Employment: The Case of the Philippines". Paper presented at the Technical Symposium on Interna- tional Migration and Development, 29 June-3 July 1998, at The Hague.

United Nations. International Migration Policies. New York: United Nations Depart- ment of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 1998.

Zipagan-banawis, btella. Deregulation or Overseas Labor Migration and Its Impact on National Security". Quezon City: National Defense College of the Philip- pines, 1997.

Graziano Battistella is Director of the Scalabrini Migration Centre, Quezon City, Philippines.



philippine migration policy: dilemmas of a crisis

Documents