In good times, the workers take a drop in the bucket, although sometimes
the droplets dry up before they trickle down to the bottom. And in bad
times, workers not only take most of the beating. Now, they are also blamed
for the slump because they are not working  hard enough; because they have
CBA's; because they oppose retrenchment; because they go on strike; and
because they form trade unions. 

And during economic downturns, foreign or migrant workers represent one the
most vulnerable sections of the working class that are immediately affected
by the crisis. Take the case of the current financial meltdown that is
scourging the Asian region. Since the onset of this crisis, Filipino
migrants have been badly hit with retrenchment, pay reduction, job
insecurity and unemployment back home. 

Before going into details, a background on Philippine overseas migration
will help to better appreciate the problems of Filipino migrants.


Philippine Overseas Migration

Among Asian countries, the Philippines has emerged as the biggest sender of
workers for overseas employment, out-stripping India, Pakistan and China.
Government statistics place annual departures at about 700,000 for both
land- and sea-based workers1.  Today, there are nearly seven million
overseas Filipino workers spread in 181 countries and destinations
worldwide2.  They now constitute about 10% of our population or nearly 20%
of our productive age population. Of these, 4.2 million are classified as
overseas contract workers (OCWs) who work on fixed terms of six months to
two years3. Philippine overseas migration has become a pair of crutches for
the local economy, serving two main objectives - to ease the unemployment
situation and to generate foreign incomes to fuel the faltering economy. 

Filipino overseas workers constitute the bulk of surplus labor in the
Philippines. Unwanted by the local economy, they are forced to seek
employment abroad, unmindful of the onerous contract terms and risks, if
only to escape poverty and joblessness at home. In 1995, we computed job
scarcity ratio in the Philippines at 69% of the actual labor force4.  
Today, this ratio could reach at least 75% considering that unemployment
rate increased 5 percentage points over the last three years5.  

It is, therefore, very easy to understand why there is a compelling reason
to seek employment overseas. Otherwise, the local economy has to contend
with an additional 4.2 million people needing jobs at home.  

Averting a potentially explosive unemployment crisis is just half of the
story.  Overseas employment also saved the Philippine financial position
from virtual collapse. In 1997, Filipino migrants remitted some $5 billion
in badly needed foreign currency6.  This amount easily doubles to $10
billion if remittances through non-banking or informal channels are
factored in. This amount is about 18% of our Gross National Product (GNP)
and is nearly the same as the contribution of the entire agricultural
sector7.  For more than a decade now, income remittances from overseas have
kept the Philippine economy afloat. If these were used to pay our foreign
debt, we could emerge out of the debt trap in just four years. 

For over two decades, the Philippines embarked on an aggressive labor
export program. But this proceeded at a tremendous cost. Widespread abuses,
exploitative working conditions, job insecurity and the virtual absence of
protection have made life extremely difficult for Filipino migrants in most
areas of destination. Prolonged separation, psychosocial pressures and
changing values have caused the breakdown of families, delinquency among
the youth and disruption of normal child development. Overseas migration
has reached a level that is well beyond the capacity of our government to
manage – in terms of providing services and guarantees; in mitigating the
social cost of migration; and in facilitating the reintegration of
returning overseas workers.  

Even in macroeconomic terms, the situation has become untenable. We are
caught in a vicious migration trap - the local economy has become overly
dependent on overseas employment, perhaps in the same way that it is
dependent on foreign capital and foreign debt. But the labor market abroad
is no longer expanding and has, in fact, started to contract, particularly
with the onset of the Asian financial crisis and the global economic
slowdown. The sudden and massive displacement of Filipino overseas workers
has become a distinct possibility. Yet, the local economy is in no position
to absorb the increasing number of Filipinos who have lost their jobs
abroad. 

For many years, the country's labor export program thrived because of the
high demand for foreign workers badly needed to implement ambitious
economic programs in the host countries. In the 1970s, the Middle East
provided a vast market for Filipino workers. This was complemented by the
increasing demand for service workers, particularly domestic helpers in
Europe, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. 

The Asian economic boom of the late 1980s and 1990s attracted hundreds of
thousands of migrants from the poor countries of the region. It provided an
alternative market for Filipino workers after the noted slowdown in the
Middle East and the increasingly restrictive immigration policies in Europe
and the global North. 


Impact of Asian Crisis

Today, an estimated 1.3 million Filipino workers are deployed in Asia and
Oceania, 
including over a hundred thousand each in Japan, Hongkong, Taiwan, Malaysia
and close to a hundred thousand in Singapore8.  Although the Middle East,
particularly Saudi Arabia, remains the top destination for Filipino
contract workers, the Asian region has become the fastest growing labor
market for Filipinos since the late 1980s. In a span of just ten years,
departures for Asian countries increased by 553% or nearly six times.
During the same period, departures for other regions expanded by only 10 to
50 percent. (see Table below)


======================================================================
OFW Deployments

    			1980-84            1990-95              Percent Change

All Countries    1,299,086		3,143,914			142.0%

Asian Countries 
in Top 10 
Destinations	129,000		*719,000			553.4%

Middle East 
Countries in 
Top 10 
Destinations	1,540,000*		475,000*			44.6%

*Rounded Figures

Source: Stella P. Go. "Towards the 21st Century: Whither
Philippine Labor Migration?". Presented at the First National Convention,
Philippine Migrant Research Network, 06 February 1997, Hotel Rembrandt,
Quezon City, Philippines.

===================================================================== 

Clearly, the Asian region, including Southeast Asia, has emerged as a
critical labor market for Filipinos. The Asian economic crisis, therefore,
has severely affected Filipino migrants and the local economy that is
threatened by rising unemployment and decreasing foreign currency incomes. 

Consider the following:

In the first five months of 1998, total deployments of Filipinos for
overseas work decreased by 3.6% compared to the same period a year ago.
Deployments to Asian countries decreased by a higher 6.5%, the first
decline recorded in more than a decade. Departures for Malaysia decreased
by 62%, Korea by 48% and Hong Kong by 18%9.


During the same period, income remittances of Filipino migrants increased
by .58%. Remittances from Asia, however, took a nose dive and declined by
24%10. Since July, 1997, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore
mounted sustained crackdowns on illegal migrants even as they warned
foreign workers with mass lay-off if the situation does not improve.

In Malaysia, the Filipinos and Indonesians took the first blow in the
aftermath of the financial crisis. Some 5,000 Filipinos have been sent home
since then. Meanwhile, Malaysia has formulated a new development thesis
saying that over dependence on foreign workers cannot sustain development
efforts and may mean the loss of freedom. 

In Hong Kong, employers are firing their domestic helpers to save money as
they contend with recession and rising unemployment. They have petitioned
the government for a drastic 35% reduction of salaries of domestic helpers.


Prospects and Responses

In view of these developments, we see the urgency of looking more closely
into the situation of labor and migrants in Southeast Asian. 

First, we note that intra-Asian migration is here to stay because of the
uneven development of economies in the region. For big business and state
authorities, international migration provides them with broader options for
pursuing their respective business interest and economic goals.
Unfortunately, the interest of labor and migrants is seldom considered and
often sacrificed in the pursuit of their objectives. Globalization and the
rapid growth strategies adopted by Asean states have also resulted to
widespread contractualization, labor feminization and massive labor
migration.

Second, we note the grave consequences of economic slumps on migrant
workers, and the labor sector in general. As mentioned earlier, they
constitute the population group that is most affected by economic crisis
even as they get blamed for business catastrophes not of their making.

Finally, it is disturbing to note the vicious attacks against trade unions
and other workers organizations. Some quarters would like to think of trade
unions as irrelevant and anachronistic in this era of globalization. We
think they are mistaken.

It is within this context that we see the imperative of working with labor
organizations and interest groups to jointly address regional development
issues, particularly those that relate to labor and overseas migration. And
we are optimistic that together, workers and migrants can face the
challenge of our times. 


End notes

1 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) placed deployment at
747,696 in 1997 and 660,122 in 1996.2 There is no accurate estimate of the
stock of overseas Filipinos.  Government and media sources estimates range
between 6.5 to 7.5 million. Other estimates range between 6 to 7 million. 

3 POEA data, 1995.

4 Job scarcity ratio is computed by aggregating the unemployed,
underemployed, the overseas workers, unpaid family workers, housewives,
disabled and those not looking for jobs

5 The National Statistics Office (NSO) reported unemployment rate at 13.3%
for the first quarter of 1998. In 1995, unemployment rate was reported at
8.7%.

6 POEA Report on Key Performance Indicators cited OFW remittances for 1997
at US$5.7 billion.

7 Share of agricultural sector in GNP is about 20%.

8 POEA Data, Key Economic Indicators, 1995.

9 Philippine Labor, October 1998, p. 8. 

10 Ibid.