While migration health studies traditionally focused on socioeconomic determinants of health, an emerging body of literature is exploring migration status as a proximate cause of health outcomes. Study 1 is a path analysis of the predictors of mental health amongst 582 documented migrant workers in Singapore, and shows that threat of deportation is one of the most important proximate social determinants of predicted mental illness, and a mediator of the impact of workplace conflict on mental health. Study 2 is a qualitative study of the narratives of 149 migrant workers who were in workplace conflict with their employers, and demonstrates that workers believed threats were used as a negotiating strategy during workplace conflicts. Findings suggest that migration status places workers who come into workplace conflict with their employers at heightened risk of mental illness because migration status can be used as a tool by employers in workplace negotiations.

While there has been much debate on Singapore’s migration policies, a ‘black box’ continues to surround policymaking decisions. This article examines the dynamics of migration policy reforms in Singapore, using the case study of the mandatory weekly day off policy for migrant domestic workers. Designing our analysis around the three ‘Is’ – ideas, interests and institutions – we argue that the inclusion and formalisation of migrant rights in the policy sphere entails the framing of migrant rights in a manner that appeals to Singapore’s institutional logics and cultural repertoire; prioritising the needs and interests of citizens in the policy calculus; and institutional readiness and conviction to the cause.

Scholarship on civil society in Singapore has tended to emphasize the structural and institutional constraints on civil society space. Conversely, little attention is paid to the broader cultural and discursive realms in which civil society and state actors operate. This article seeks to address this gap by analysing the day‐off campaign for migrant domestic workers in Singapore. We demonstrate that by employing the cultural mediation strategy of vernacularization, civil society was able to frame migrant rights claims in a manner that resonated with the institutional logics and cultural repertoire of Singapore society. Civil society actors gained headway by adapting the discourse on migrant rights to Singapore's socio‐cultural and political context in three ways: by reframing rights claims into a moral appeal; by appealing to the cost‐benefit logics of Singaporean employers of migrant domestic workers; and by situating the provision of migrant labour protections as a relative market position.

In this article we contribute to the emerging knowledge on migration policy‐making in two ways. Firstly, we address the relative lack of research on the gendered nature of migration policy‐making. Secondly we contribute to understanding migration policymaking in postcolonial contexts. Based on case studies from Bangladesh, South Africa, and Singapore, we trace the drivers of policy change in these contexts and how the gendered vulnerability of the intended beneficiaries impacted the policy process. We found that there were four main drivers of migration policy‐making in each of the countries. They were: the role‐players in the policy change process, the debates that shaped the policy change, the research involved, and the political context in which the policy change took place. While our research drew on existing policy frameworks, it also showed that policy development is shaped by complex socio‐political conditions.