It only takes a quick look at the color of the skin of people doing various jobs in Singapore to see the obvious culture of racism. Anyone can do it: just go there and see who cleans, serves food, drives taxis and buses, runs the banks, police and the government.
Denying the reality may be your personal choice, but don't shoot the messenger.
I had a chat with the maid of a place I stayed in for a month. She was pinay and very happy to be in Singapore, housed, fed and paid around $500 a month with a few hours off on Sundays. The FOB expats of course fumed at the idea, but the alternative for her was earning a fraction of that, stuck in a small village, her life at risk from health issues or aggression.
I haven't talked to construction workers, but I've briefly worked in parts of India with about the same level of earnings (<$70/month). Again, 16h days in the sweltering heat of Singaporean construction sites, and a first world infrastructure, are a HUGE improvement, and so is the much better salary.
It just so happens that the available pool of talent for this legal, structured work overwhelmingly lives in certain countries. But those who do it, seem pretty keen on the work and happy with its results - even if Berkeley residents are outraged that organic cucumbers and probiotic yogurt are not available for the raita. Happy to be proven wrong, by independent third party sources.
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.
I misread your earlier position as assuming racism, and forced labour from the Singaporean system, and defended accordingly. What you are now talking about, specifically "people deserve in equal measure", is a completely different subject, which refers to what rights are.
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.]
They are. The market rate for a maid might be $2k/month locally, and $500/month + food, board and health insurance for a pinay. Singapore is rather unique in that it accepts the existence of global labour market instead of closing its borders (and understands that freeing the local population from back breaking manual labour is generally a good thing, but that's a separate issue). Market rates are much higher in Switzerland because the country has almost no illegal labour (unlike the US, most EU countries, etc.) and issues few visas for manual labour. But I remember, for example, the Geneva police force being mostly French citizen, because they would do the job for 60k CHF/year vs the 90k CHF/year a Swiss would want (I think this is changing as the Swiss realize that foreigners don't really make motivated policemen). [A lot of the complaints about minimum wage/welfare also stem from "let them eat cake" syndrome, in my experience ("what do you mean, a family of 5 in a one bedroom apartment? every child should have his own bedroom when growing up!").]
That's incidentally the crux of the issue with US immigration policy. It used to be that anybody who made it there could stay, and an enormous number of dynasties were started by fresh immigrants (or second generation). As the welfare state was introduced, the borders had to close to avoid an influx of welfare seekers. As other countries got more competitive, there was further political pressure to impede foreign talent from competing with local talent; most recently, you see it in the H1B crisis as American developers suddenly have to contend with large numbers of well educated Chinese, Indian or even European developers willing to work for a lot less. Because the southern border was so hard to make hermetic, illegal immigration for manual labour became the norm and now about 3.5% of the US population (around 11 million) are illegals (and have limited individual rights as a result).
What is so unique about the Singaporean system is that they have managed to set up a system allowing foreigners to come work in the country and retain individual rights and the rule of law whilst being paid a market wage.
Are you a bot? I have lived there. It's funny that you accuse me of personal accusation but you tried just that by considering me to be a Singaporean. And since I belong to one of the nationalities you listed as being discriminated earlier; your whole worldview is shaken it seems.. You are just not willing to accept it.
It only takes a quick look at the color of the skin of people doing various jobs in Singapore to see the obvious culture of racism. Anyone can do it: just go there and see who cleans, serves food, drives taxis and buses, runs the banks, police and the government.
Denying the reality may be your personal choice, but don't shoot the messenger.