A horrific fire at a sofa manufacturing factory in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has killed 16 Bangladeshis. The fire broke out at around 2 p.m. local time last Sunday in the Musa Sanaiya industrial area of the Shifa police station district.
A preliminary investigation suggests that the fire may have originated from an electrical short circuit. Among the victims were workers from Naogaon, Natore, and Rajshahi.
Different sources have reported varying figures for the number of deaths from Atrai Upazila alone—11 or 13. Amid this tragic incident, it has emerged that one Bangladeshi worker survived because he had gone out to get a haircut.
In other words, the difference of just a few minutes between being present and absent at the same workplace may have determined the boundary between life and death. But should the lives of Bangladeshi workers who go abroad really depend on such sheer chance?
Saudi Arabia is Bangladesh’s largest overseas labor market. In 2025, more than 1.1 million people left Bangladesh to seek employment abroad. More than two-thirds of them went to Saudi Arabia.
This huge workforce is critically important to the country’s economy. Remittances sent by migrant workers strengthen foreign-exchange reserves, support families, and create a flow of money into rural economies.
Yet a large proportion of those whose labor contributes so significantly to the economy live and work abroad in inhumane conditions.
Overcrowded rooms, inadequate fire safety, insufficient emergency exits, hazardous electrical connections, long working hours, and allegations of employer misconduct have long been concerns.
When an accident occurs, another ordeal begins. At every stage—from identifying the bodies and conducting autopsies to completing legal formalities, communicating with employers, and bringing the remains home—families are forced to endure anxiety and uncertainty through a long and painful process.
This is where the state’s responsibility is particularly clear. Everyone recognizes the need for regular discussions with the authorities and employers of destination countries to ensure safe working conditions for Bangladeshis employed abroad in every labor market.
Embassies and labor welfare wings cannot afford to become active only after an accident occurs. How seriously have we considered identifying high-risk workplaces, receiving workers’ complaints, coordinating with local authorities to inspect working conditions, and establishing systems for rapid rescue and assistance during emergencies?
Training for workers before they leave the country also needs to change. It is not enough to teach them job skills and language proficiency and consider the responsibility fulfilled.
Can we not provide every worker with practical training on what to do in the event of a fire or electrical accident, how to safely evacuate the workplace, emergency contact numbers, local labor laws, and how to contact the embassy?
Another important issue is the prompt repatriation of workers’ remains. When a worker dies, placing the administrative burden on the bereaved family is contrary to basic humanity.
The government could establish a centralized system so that families do not have to run from one office to another. The entire process—including identification, necessary documentation, transportation, and compensation—should be completed within clearly defined time limits.
Migrant workers cannot be treated merely as numbers who send remittances. Each of them is a human being—a vital pillar of a family, sometimes the last support for elderly parents, and sometimes the sole hope for a child’s future.
If the value of their labor is so great to the country’s economy, then the state must give equal importance to the value of their lives.
The deaths of 16 people in the Riyadh fire are therefore not merely an accident. They represent a bleak picture of the safety and humanity of our overseas labor system.
This bleak and colorless picture must change. The lives of migrant workers can never be allowed to become so cheap.
