When Space is Scarce, Ethical Considerations Matter
Space is an expensive commodity in Singapore. Compact apartments, soaring costs, and limited breathing room are all part of daily life. However, a pressing ethical dilemma emerges when considerations of practicality clash with morality: the use of HDB bomb shelters and storage rooms as living spaces for domestic helpers.
Originally intended for emergencies and storage, these spaces are increasingly being repurposed as homes for workers. While they provide a solution to space shortages and rising living costs, they raise questions about comfort, dignity, and human rights.
What does it imply when bomb shelters—spaces built for safety—become the backdrop for someone’s rest after a day of hard labour? Designed for protection, not long-term habitation, they are often cramped, windowless, and suffocating—far from the idea of a home.
Employers might argue that these spaces are better alternatives to overcrowded or costly living situations. Yet this raises a deeper issue: have employers truly considered what the workers themselves want? Too often, decisions are made based on assumptions rather than open dialogue.
The core issue extends beyond square footage. It’s about representation, respect, and the implicit message sent by such choices. When we rely on these spaces as quick fixes, are we addressing one issue only to create others?
No simple solution exists, but it’s essential to move away from temporary answers. The conversation should evolve towards collaboration and fairness—finding ways to accommodate space challenges and the need for domestic help without undermining the dignity of workers.
Understanding and shared responsibility are vital. How we address this issue says much about our values and our commitment to humane living conditions.
