Martin and Callaway (2011:220) assert that economic imperatives and social stigmas can prohibit victims of TIP from returning home and leave them vulnerable to further abuse. A stigmatised identity can develop as the result of factors such as prostitution, failing as a migrant or not bringing home money (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2012:28). Returnees often face cultural factors such as loss of reputation after the trafficking experience that combine with poverty related push factors which persist even after repatriation. A tendency to search for ‘easy money’ rather than engage in menial labour (Raijman et al., 2003; Jacquemet, 1996), also limits opportunities for people once they have returned to their village. These complexities can lead to continued vulnerability for returned trafficking victims and prompt a second migration attempt which includes the risk of being re-trafficked (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2012).
Loss of Reputation
Victim-survivors of TIP who are successfully repatriated to their hometowns are not necessarily in a better position that those who have not been rescued, as their reputations can be severely damaged. The strong desire to impress one’s neighbours and increase social status, illustrated in Chapter Four, coincides with everyone knowing each other in small villages and an abundance of potentially harmful gossip. Thus having an untainted reputation is essential. Migrating has both the potential to achieve high social status, but also to destroy the migrant’s reputation. Mariel, Marie-Lisa, Carlotta and Brenda, for instance, said they felt ashamed that they had gone to work in the brothel (even though they did not actually work there as they were intercepted on the way), and did not want to leave the crisis centre because of stigma. When they did return to their village they were bullied publicly for being prostitutes and branded as ‘the ones who went to sell their virginity’. Even Carlotta’s teacher said in front of a group of people including Carlotta: “Oh that’s Carlotta; she’s the one who went to Angeles to sell her virginity for 100,000!”
Niki also suffered the effects of a damaged reputation when she returned to her village. While the trial to convict her trafficker was in process she was not able to attend normal school and so was home-schooled for two years. At the end of that period she failed the entry examination for grade two so, after two years away, re- enrolled in grade one in a public school. The fact that she was put back in school and the stigma associated with her trafficking experience were causes for bullying, and her friends at the Department of Social Welfare and Development had to intervene on her behalf. She is currently residing at a home for girls, while she is recovering from her traumatic experiences. Once stigma and trauma have subsided after counselling and livelihood options have been provided, it is important that victim-survivors of TIP are reintegrated into society and are able to enter reputable employment (Martin and Callaway, 2011; Laczko, 2005). This can be difficult, however, if their home context has not changed and the same incentives to migrate remain (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2012).
The Search for Easy Money
Mulder (1990) asserted that the colonial education system which inflicted a national sense of inferiority, as discussed in Chapter Three, also systematically instilled shame about perceived ‘laziness’ into the Filipino population. He quoted high school textbooks and presidential speeches which declare that Filipinos ‘do not work hard, sacrifice work for social occasions, lack pride in their work and look for easy money’. Textbooks were written with the intention of ‘making Filipinos aware of their weaknesses so they can change them’ (1990:94-95). Mulder states that whether or not a student is actually lazy, ‘chances are that such readings become self-fulfilling prophesies’ (1990:95). Migration is often perceived as a way to earn ‘easy money’ to people in poor villages who see returned migrants with disposable incomes, despite the reality that the migrants’ money was usually extremely ‘hard-earned’ (Osella and Osella, 2000; Raijman et al., 2003; Jacquemet, 1996; Busza 2004). In this context, and with consideration to the apparent laziness of some service providers as detailed above, it is interesting to note that several of the interviewees saw their migration as a way to avoid hard work and make ‘easy money’. They believed that rather than toiling fields for minimum profit, they could more efficiently use their labour to make money more quickly as a domestic worker in Manila. However, this decision could be seen as a way to maximise the earning potential of their labour as part of a survival strategy, rather than laziness, which will be discussed further in Chapter Six.
Rosalie stated that many poor Filipinos are under the impression that migrating will lead them to ‘the land of milk and honey’ where they can gain meaningful employment and all their financial and other problems will be solved. She said that all intercepted trafficking victims were unaware of the risks associated with migration and had no knowledge of TIP. The crisis centre teaches trafficking victim-survivors life skills, handicraft training, dressmaking, cooking for future employment plus basic education; some illiterate girls are taught to read and write. They are also provided with counselling on TIP as well as personal development, namely how to change one’s attitude or personality to a more productive mind to work, rather than just looking for easy money and gadgets. Rosalie and ATIP staff explained that most of the rescued girls actually turn down the livelihood options
offered them - microfinance, skills training or education - as they ‘don’t want to work or study’ and opt for getting married and having children instead. Subsequently their children also grow up with little education and seek an ‘easy’ way out of poverty.
Brunovskis and Surtees (2012) stated that many returned trafficking victims decline livelihood support if they feel it does not suit their specific needs. The IOM (2008) also found that people who have strong family support networks are less likely to accept assistance from providers who administer a certain selection criteria (2008:34). Several ATIP staff reiterated the fact that it was difficult to engage trafficking survivors into alternative forms of employment or training. Mariel, Marie-Lisa and Brenda all declined the livelihood support offered by Plan stating that they did not want to work or study but preferred to get married and have children. Mariel is now in her second marriage with one child, and her plan is to have more children. Marie-Lisa is married and she also wants to have children. Brenda has no plan; she is in her village ‘just relaxing’ and is content. Only Carlotta from that group is enrolled in school and said she wants to achieve and go on with her life. Bernard is also enrolled in school but says he is focusing on trying to find a way to get his brother out of the junkshop. He had no plan as to how as he was going to do that and was leaving it to the police, (even though the police have known about the issue for two years and not acted). Anda now has a job selling used clothing around his village which earns him between PHP 120 - 200 per day. He says it is not enough but he is happy if he gets an income each day. Joena is just happy to be home, away from the Beer House, and is going to try and send her recruiter to prison.
While most of the interviewees said adamantly that they would never accept another offer to migrate, (although Brenda briefly went to Manila to work as a domestic helper but left after one month as her employer was abusive), Rosalie says there are girls who end up back at the crisis centre, as they attempt to migrate for a second time. In some cases the exploitative industries poor people are trafficked into are simply a better option than staying in their village (Kara, 2009; Brunovskis and Surtees, 2012). Joena recounted how some of her co-workers at the brothel who had been there for five years, from as young as age 14, were able
to get a better life through the work, despite contracting HIV. This predicament gives an indication of the conditions that people opt to migrate out of, to which a life of prostitution and terminal illness could be preferable. However, Rosalie insisted that if the girls have been successfully educated on TIP during aftercare, then they do not usually attempt to migrate again. These issues which persist in migrants’ lives, after the trafficking experience is over, illustrate the complexity of trafficking and the necessity of tackling fundamental issues of poverty in order to eliminate the element of force in migration.
Chapter Conclusions
Poverty and inequality can explain not only the reasons for migration but also the pervasiveness of trafficking in persons in Samar as they are factors which allow traffickers to continue with impunity (Zhang and Pineda, 2008; Ezeilo, 2012). Despite social workers, specially trained police task forces and NGO staff trying earnestly to curb the flow of trafficking, the issue is nonetheless that the traffickers have money and the law enforcers do not (Bird and Rodriguez, 1999). In a system that is rife with corruption, a trafficker can easily pay police, prosecutors and judges twice their official salary and resume his illegal business. Social workers deal with individual cases but knowing that the likelihood of securing a conviction is negligible, they eventually lose the will to keep fighting what has proved to be a losing battle.
Similarly, even survivors of trafficking often lose the desire to find meaningful employment as social mobility is low and working hard, if they are fortunate enough to find a job, will not necessarily improve their position (Fuwa. 2003; Hakata, 2013). Livelihood support offered by NGOs is often turned down if it is perceived to entail a ‘harder’ method of earning a living than migration would (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2012; IOM, 2008), especially after witnessing the success of other returned migrants who seemingly made ‘easy money’ (Jacquemet, 1996; Busza 2004).
Trafficking survivors also often battle stigma and loss of reputation within their villages which can hinder their recovery and increase the chance of attempting to migrate again, and hence risk being re-trafficked (Martin and Callaway, 2011;
Langberg, 2005). In some cases, where social exclusion and lack of opportunities persist, situations of labour and sexual exploitation can appear preferable to life in the village (Brunovskis and Surtees, 2012). While this complex situation of poverty and corruption in Samar - and the Philippines generally - remains, young, poor, vulnerable people will continue to search for work outside their hometowns and traffickers will continue to exploit them with impunity.