Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia (NAMM)

About 2% of 1,303,126 undocumented migrants legalized - back to work? or legalized and deported???

2011-11-01T21:55:00.000-07:00

"...over 2.5 million foreign workers had registered since the operation started on July 13. “Of the number, 1.6 million were legal foreign workers while 900,000 were illegals,” he[Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam] said... - Star, 31/8/2011, No extension to amnesty scheme as ministry prepares for next phase

'...second phase of the 6P programme to legalise the illegal foreign workers in the country would be undertaken for a three-month period, Home Ministry secretary general Tan Sri Mahmood Adam said here....The 6P programme entails registration, legalising, amnesty, monitoring, enforcement and deportation of illegal immigrants and a total of 2,320,034 legal and illegal workers have registered under first phase which ended on Aug 31.Of those registered, 1,303,126 were illegals while the remaining 1,016,908 were legal workers....' - Star, 10/9/2011, Second phase of amnesty programme will last 3 months

Legal foreign workers and illegal immigrants who paid exorbitant fees for registration under the 6P amnesty and legalisation programme can file a case under the consumer tribunal to get back the excess money they had paid....The Government has fixed RM35 as maximum rate for registration of illegal immigrants through 348 appointed managing companies, while the maximum service charge for legalisation is RM300.- Star, 2/9/2011, Foreign workers who paid extra under amnesty can file case

*** They also can lodge complaints with the police and other government bodies - even SUHAKAM

PUTRAJAYA: The legalisation and amnesty process under the 6P programme for illegal foreign workers will be carried out simultaneously to enable those wishing to return to their countries to do so immediately.

The amnesty process involved two categories those who had participated in the registration process and wished to leave the country and those who had surrendered voluntarily.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said under the process, the illegals could directly deal with the Immigration Department to obtain the Exit Inspection Memo without any action being taken against them.

“As of Monday, a total of 25,561 illegal immigrants had been granted amnesty and had left the country.

“Among the five countries that registered the most number of the illegals, who had been granted amnesty and had left, were Indonesia with 15,901 immigrants, followed by India (2,501), Nepal (1,048), Myanmar (1,040) and Vietnam (930),” he said in a statement yesterday.

The 6P programme comprises registration, legalisation, amnesty, supervision, enforcement and deportation.

Hishammuddin said they had been screened and were found free of any criminal record.

“They have returned home with all costs fully borne by themselves,” he said, adding that the Government had not allocated any money to finance costs including food and temporary lodging.

Hishammuddin added that under the programme, the Government saved about RM3.3bil in gross expenditure to register 1,303,126 illegal immigrants, which ended on Aug 31.

He said the Government had instead managed to increase collection from fees charged for the levy, pass and visa imposed on foreign workers who were legalised.

He said that as of Sunday, 27,514 illegal immigrants had been legalised involving 2,208 employers. - Star, 2/11/2011, 25,500 illegals have left the country under amnesty, says Hishammuddin

Bid to free 9 migrant workers from Burma detained by Immigration (Malay Mail, 31/10/2011)

2011-11-01T10:17:00.000-07:00

Bid to free workers

Nine from Myanmar wrongfully held by Immigration, says NGO

Meena Lakshana

Monday, October 31st, 2011 11:29:00- Malay Mail, 31/10/2011, Bid to free workers

PETALING JAYA: Nine Myanmar factory workers have been wrongfully detained by the Immigration Department since Oct 4, representatives of a non-profit organisation (NGO) said yesterday.

Burma Campaign Malaysia director Tun Tun said the workers were detained after failing to provide their work permits or visa documents to officers from the Shah Alam Immigration office who went to their apartment in Section 6, Kota Damansara, where they were staying.

"The officers went to the apartment at 1am after a complaint about noise was lodged against the workers by their neighbours," he told The Malay Mail.

Tun Tun claimed the outsourcing company that recruited the workers were in the midst of preparing the documents.

He said the workers had arrived in Malaysia in June.

He also said the workers' employer was holding their passports.

Tun Tun said the workers were being held at the KL International Airport (KLIA) Immigration detention centre in Sepang.

"They paid US$850 (RM2,604) each to come to Malaysia to work and were made to believe their documents would be ready on their arrival," he said.

He said the outsourcing company had shortchanged the workers as their documents were still not prepared.

"Every time we call them to ask about it, they would give us different answers," he said.

Tun Tun said Burma Campaign Malaysia was working with the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) for their release.

MTUC industrial relations director Peter Kandiah said officers from the Immigration Department should conduct thorough investigations before detaining foreign workers without proper documentation.

"Why weren't the outsourcing company's staff remanded?" he asked.

"I'm upset with the Immigration Department for the manner they are handling the matter."

Kandiah said the department had yet to answer his queries on the reasons for detaining the Myanmar workers.

"I've been trying to contact them since last Thursday but to no avail," he said.

"I was given the runaround when I visited the Immigration Department office. I even left my contact details but no one got back to me."

Immigration Department director-general Datuk Alias Ahmad said he needed to check the details of the case before commenting. - Malay Mail, 31/10/2011, Bid to free workers

107 Groups: Malaysia Must Protect Worker and Union Rights, and withdraw proposed unjust amendments to Employment Act - Labour Suppliers Should Not Be Employers (28/10/2011)

2011-10-28T07:24:00.000-07:00

Media Statement – 28/10/2011 (107 Groups)

Malaysia Must Protect Worker and Union Rights, and withdraw

proposed unjust amendments to Employment Act

- Labour Suppliers Should Not Be Employers -

We, the undersigned 107 organizations, groups and networks are disturbed that the Malaysian government has proceeded to table, and get it passed speedily on 6/10/2011 at the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representative) the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2011 despite protests from workers, trade unions and civil society. The proposed changes to the Employment Act would be most detrimental to worker rights, trade unions and the existing just direct 2-party employment relationship between worker and end-user (the principal). Malaysia’s action goes contrary to justice. In many countries employers have been wrongly trying to avoid/disguise employment relationships by way of contracts/agreements and triangular relationships, and Malaysia rather than fighting against this negative trend is now trying to legalize it, hence showing itself to be anti-worker anti-unions.

We note also that the amendments would result in discrimination at the workplace, as many workers at a factory, plantation or any workplace would end up being no longer employees of the owner-operator of the said workplace, also referred to as the principal or end-user, but would remain employees of the supplier of workers, known as ‘contractor for labour’. Workers doing the same work at the factory, would be treated differently in terms of wages, work benefits and even rights by reason of the fact that their employers are different. This will also go against the Malaysian Federal Constitution that guarantees equality of persons. We advocate that all workers working at a factory or workplace are entitled to be treated equally in terms of wages, work benefits, rights, union rights, reliance on collective agreements and other entitlements.

The proposed amendment would also destroy direct employment relationships between owner-operator of workplaces, being the principal, and the workers that work there producing the product or providing the services from which these principals derive their profits. A just employment relationship dictates that all workers should be employees of the owner-operator employer not some other third party labour supplier, whether they be known as ‘contractor for labour’, outsourcing agent or by any other name. The relationship must be a direct relationship, to the exclusion of all third parties, between the employer who needs workers to do the work to produce the goods of their business for profits, and the workers directly who provide the necessary labour as required in exchange for fair wages and other benefits. The availability of short-term employment contracts is another reason why there is no need to legalize triangular or other employment relationships in Malaysia through the creation of the ‘contractor for labour’.

To fight for decent wages and rights, and to be able to negotiate and get better working conditions and other work benefits, workers at a workplace would generally come together collectively or as a union to be able to negotiate from a stronger position with employers, and this would result in agreements or ‘collective agreements’ between employers and workers (or their unions). If the amendments proposed become law, then many workers at the factory would effectively lose their rights to be able to form or be members of the trade union at the workplace, or the right to directly and effectively negotiate with the principal who effectively controls the work place, working conditions and benefits.

If the proposed amendment becomes law, effectively it will also weaken existing workers and unions, by reducing their negotiating power for now when a strike or a protest in called, there will be other workers of other third party employers who will continue to work normally thus making worker struggle for better rights almost impossible. This proposed amendment is a ‘union busting’ exercises and allows employers to utilize ‘divide and rule’ tactics to counter legitimate demands of their workers and avoid employer obligations and responsibilities. Another unjustifiable proposed changed is the delay of payment of overtime and work on rest days by a month.

With regard to sexual harassment, the new provision provides only for inquiry by employer even when the alleged perpetrator is a member of the management, a partner, shareholder and/or director of the employer’s business, and provides no clear right of appeal to the Labour Courts or the High Court. Note that other worker rights violations are currently all dealt with by the definitely more independent Labour Department or Industrial Relations Department. Remedy for the victim of sexual harassment is also absent, save maybe the right to resign without the need to give the required notice when the perpetrator is a sole proprietor.

The Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC), which represents over 800,000 workers of member unions, who is also is the accepted workers representative in Malaysia, picketed calling for the withdrawal of the amendments on 3/10/2011, and apparently despite the Minister assuring them that the amendment will only be tabled at the end of the month, was suddenly rushed and passed at the Lower House of Malaysia’s Parliament on 6/10/2011.

Malaysia has the Private Employment Agencies Act 1971, whereby these agencies rightfully get workers for employers, who then pay them a fee for the service, and once workers are received by the employer, these workers immediately become employees of the said employer. The amendments will creates a new kind of labour supply companies who will continue as employers of the workers even after they start working at the workplace of the principal, and this is unacceptable. All companies in the business of finding workers for companies that need workers to produce their products or for their business must be private employment agencies, and must never assume or retain the role of employers.

As the said Bill still needs to be passed by the Senate and receive royal assent, before it becomes law, we call on the Malaysian government to act in the best interest of workers and their unions and immediately withdraw this unjust proposed amendments to Employment Act 1955.

We call on Malaysia to immediately discontinue its policy of recognizing outsourcing agents, and act immediately against practices of some employers and outsourcing agents that try to avoid/disguise employment relationships to the detriment of workers and unions.

We call on countries and regional bodies, companies, ILO, trade unions and persons to do the needful to ensure that worker and union rights, not just of local but also migrant workers, are protected in Malaysia, and that the employment relationship continue to be between owner-operator end user employers who actually need workers to do work and the workers that work there to the exclusion of any third party labour suppliers or ‘contractors for labour’.

Charles Hector
Pranom Somwong
For and on behalf of the 107 Organisations listed below:-

Abra Migrant Workers Welfare Association - Hong Kong (AMWWA)

Abra Tinguian Ilocano Society - Hong Kong (ATIS-HK)

ALIRAN, Malaysia

All Women's Action Society (AWAM), Malaysia

Asian Migrants Center (AMC), Hong Kong

Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC), Hong Kong

Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (APMM)

Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)

Asian Migrants' Coordinating Body - Hong Kong (AMCB)

Association for Community Development-ACD, Bangladesh

Association of Concerned Filipinos in Hong Kong (ACFIL-HK)

Association of Indonesia Migrant Workers in Indonesia (ATKI-Indonesia)

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)

BAYAN Hong Kong

Building and Wood Worker's International (BWI) Asia Pacific

Burma Campaign, Malaysia

Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)

Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)

Center for Indonesian Migrant Workers (CIMW)

Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR)

Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC)

Coordination of Action Research on Aids and Mobility (CARAM-ASIA)

Committee for Asian Women (CAW)

Community Action Network (CAN), Malaysia

Confederation of Voluntary Associations (COVA), Hyderabad, India

Cordillera Alliance Hong Kong (CORALL-HK)

Democratic Party For A New Society (DPNS), Burma

Dignity International, Malaysia

Education and Research Association for Consumers Malaysia (ERA Consumer Malaysia)

Filipino Friends Hong Kong (FFHK)

Filipino Migrants Association - Hong Kong (FMA)

Filipino Migrant Workers' Union - Hong Kong (FMWU)

Filipino Women Migrant Workers Association - Hong Kong (FILWOM-HK)

Foundation for Women, Thailand

Friends of Bethune House (FBH), Hong Kong

GABRIELA Hong Kong

GABRIELA Philippines

Good Shepherd Sisters, Malaysia

Health Equity Initiatives (HEI), Malaysia

Housing Rights Task Force, Cambodia

Human Rights Education Institute of Burma (HREIB)

Human Security Alliance (HSA)

International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF)

IMA Research Foundation, Bangladesh

INFID (International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development )

Institute for National and Democratic Studies (INDIES)

International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, Indonesia

JERIT, Malaysia

Karmojibi Nari , Bangladesh

Kalyanamitra, Indonesia

Kav La'Oved , Israel

Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center

Komite Independen Pemantau Pemilu (Independent Committee for Election Monitoring), Indonesia

Legal Support for Children and Women (LSCW), Cambodia

LLG Cultural Development Centre, Malaysia

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)

Malaysian Election Observers Network (MEO-Net)

MakeItfair

MAP Foundation, Thailand

Maquila Solidarity Network, Canada

May 1st Coalition for Worker & Immigrant Rights, NY-USA

Migrant CARE, Indonesia

Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA)

Migrant Trade Union, Korea (MTU)

Migrante International

National Alliance of Women Human Rights Defenders, Nepal

Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia (NAMM)

National League For Democracy (Liberated Area )[ NLD(LA)], Malaysia

Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization (PRWSWO)

Peduli Buruh Migran, Indonesia

Penang Watch, Malaysia

People's Green Coalition

Pergerakan Indonesia

Perkumpulan PRAXIS, Indonesia

Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti, Selangor (EMPOWER)

Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

Pinatud a Saleng ti Umili (PSU)

Pusat KOMAS, Malaysia

Quê Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam

Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)

Sedane Labour Resource Center/(Lembaga Informasi Perburuhan Sedane), Indonesia

Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia (SBMI)

Shan Women Action Network (SWAN), Thailand

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Solidaritas Perempuan (Women's Solidarity for Human Rights), Indonesia

SOS(Save Ourselves), Malaysia

Suaram, Malaysia

Tenaganita, Malaysia

Thai Committee for Refugees Foundation (TCR)

The Filipino Women's Organization in Quebec, Canada

The GoodElectronics Network

Think Centre (Singapore)

UNIMIG (Union Migrant Indonesia)

United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL-MIGRANTE-HK)

United Pangasinan in Hong Kong (UPHK)

Urban Community Mission (UCM Jakarta), Indonesia

Vietnam Committee on Human Rights

WARBE Development Foundation, Bangladesh

Women Forum for Women, Nepal

Women Legal BUREAU, Philippines

WOREC, Nepal

Workers Assistance Center, Inc (WAC), Philippines

Workers Hub For Change (WH4C)

Yasanti

Yayasan LINTAS NUSA (Batam Indonesia)

Burmese - the biggest group of asylum seekers in Malaysia

2011-10-10T08:35:00.000-07:00

It is estimated that there may be about 600,000 undocumented migrants from Burma in Malaysia, and today it has been disclosed in Malaysian Parliament that Burmese are the largest number of asylum seekers in Malaysia...

KUALA LUMPUR: Myanmar nationals are the largest number of asylum seekers in Malaysia, the Dewan Rakyat was told Monday.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said until Aug, 7,582 of the total 10,850 asylum seekers were Myanmar nationals.

Statistics by United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Kuala Lumpur showed there were 94,843 'persons of concern' where 83,993 were refugees and 10,850 were asylum seekers.

"Of the total, 67,145 were men and 27,698 women with Mynamar nationals the majority with 7,582 asylum seekers," he said in a written reply to Lim Lip Eng (DAP-Segambut) here.

Lim asked about the number of refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia and laws that guarantee their welfare and safety while in detention.

Nazri said although Malaysia did not sign any agreement on refugees, no illegal immigrants holding UNHCR cards had been arrested on humanitarian grounds.

Malaysia is not signatory to United Nations Convention Relating to The Status of Refugees 1951 and Protocol Relating to The Status of Refugees 1967.

"Malaysia has allowed the refugees to stay here temporarily until they are relocated to a third country," he said.

However, since Malaysia did not sign any agreement on refugees, the government could not guarantee their welfare and safety. - Bernama- Star, 10/10/2011, Myanmar nationals top asylum seekers’ list

MTUC threatens picket 0n 3rd October ...

2011-09-29T06:59:00.000-07:00

MTUC threatens picket 0n 3rd October ...

The said amendments, first tabled in 2010 waswithdrawn after much protest including from MTUC, and then it was re-tabled with substantially the same amendments this year - it is currently fixed for 2nd and 3rd reading..

The danger of this amendment is that it introduces 'contractor for labour' - a 3rd party that will , unlike Private Employment Agencies, will continue to remain employers of the workers that they supply to the principal. Hence, we will no more have a direct employer-worker employment relationship. We will now have Employer - contractor for labour- worker relationship, and the worker will continue to be employees of these 'contractors for labour' even after the worker is supplied to the factory/plantation.

Of course, the unions in the factories/plantations will be weakened - for there will be other workers who are there in the factory, who will not be able to be part of the union... and how many of these not directly employed workers,,,it could be a small percentage or maybe even the majority..

And, this will also lead to discrimination at the workplace for not all workers will be treated the same with regard to wages, benefits and even rights despite the fact that they do the same work.

This amendment reveals again that our BN government is really not for the good and welfare of workers and trade unions... All this is done not just to benefit employers, i.e. by removing their obligations and duties to their workers. The 3rd party labour suppliers really do not have any actual control or supervision of the workplace and working conditions...

We already have these 'contractors for labour' now known as 'outsourcing companies' - and they are already operating 'illegally' and the government rather than acting have not enforced the law.

Why? Well, to get a permit/license to operate as an 'outsourcing agent' is a gold mine - and guess who are getting the licences/permits... Just like those "APs" ...mmm one wonder. What happens is the factory/company pays the 'outsourcing agent'(the contractor for labour) RM60 for a worker per day normal hours, and they pay the worker RM20 and keeps RM40.. - A Labour Toll, is it not and very profitable indeed.

I was worried about the silence of MTUC - but alas they have now taken a strong stand against this propose amendment...

What say the Opposition political parties - let us hope that preparations for the next General Elections may not distract them from taking the correct position regarding these proposed amendments - are they pro-workers pro-unions or just like the BN pro-employer...pro-'outsourcing agents'..

Well, to be fair some companies/employers prefer to have a direct employment relationship with all their workers - and their complaint is that this option has been made difficult especially for migrant workers, and they are 'pushed' towards getting workers from these 'outsourcing agents'..

MTUC warns Oct 3 picket if Putrajaya tables labour law reforms

By G. Manimaran

September 26, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 26 — The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) has vowed to stage a protest outside Parliament when it starts sitting on October 3 if Putrajaya proceeds with its plan to amend current labour laws.

MTUC secretary-general Abdul Halim Mansor pointed out that Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam had recently given his assurance that the amendment Bill would not be tabled in the House without prior discussion with the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC).

The NLAC comprises representatives from the government, employers and employees.

He told The Malaysian Insider that the decision was reached during MTUC’s general council meeting yesterday.

“If the government really goes ahead with debates on any labour law Bill, especially the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2010, MTUC will picket outside Parliament on the first day of the sitting,” he said.

Parliament will reconvene this October 3 and go on until December. The coming session is scheduled to focus on debates for Budget 2012 but several Bills are also expected to be tabled.

Halim said the MTUC general council has directed its secretariat to contact the ministry and find out if the amendment Bills would be brought to Parliament next month.

“If so, then it violates the minister’s guarantee to MTUC before this. If the Bills are read, MTUC will not hesitate to picket... we want the government to hold a discussion before any amendments are tabled,” he said.

The second reading of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2010 has been postponed twice before this.

Trade union representatives and opposition politicians had decried the proposed amendments, claiming they were drawn up at the behest of multinational corporations and potential investors and deliberately designed to empower employers to employ workers on fixed-term contract for as long as they please.

The MTUC had also highlighted the fact that once the amendments are passed, “employers would be permitted to impose unreasonable working hours, change weekly rest days as they please”, in effect requiring women workers to work at night.

Last October, the ministry withdrew the Bill from the second reading to incorporate several changes and add further amendments but has reportedly refused to furnish further details.

At the time, Dr Subramaniam denied the withdrawal was tied to plans by Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) to picket at seven different locations to protest the amendments.

The Bill was first tabled on July 8 last year and touched on provisions involving sexual harassment at the workplace and the welfare of housekeepers.

It is believed that the laws that are scheduled to be amended include the Employment Act 1955, Industrial Relations Act 1967 and the Trade Union Act 1959.- Malaysian Insider, 26/9/2011, MTUC warns Oct 3 picket if Putrajaya tables labour law reforms

ILO Convention Concerning Decent Work For Domestic Workers (No. 189)

2011-06-16T22:31:00.000-07:00

100th ILO annual Conference decides to bring an estimated 53 to 100 million domestic workers worldwide under the realm of labour standards

The government, worker and employer delegates at the 100th annual Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on Thursday, 16 June adopted a historic set of international standards aimed at improving the working conditions of tens of millions of domestic workers worldwide.

Press release | June 16, 2011

GENEVA, (ILO News) – The government, worker and employer delegates at the 100^th annual Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on Thursday, 16 June adopted a historic set of international standards aimed at improving the working conditions of tens of millions of domestic workers worldwide...

...Conference delegates adopted the Convention on Domestic Workers (2011) by a vote of 396 to 16, with 63 abstentions and the accompanying Recommendation by a vote of 434 to 8, with 42 abstentions. The ILO is the only tripartite organization of the UN, and each of its 183 Member States is represented by two government delegates, and one employer and one worker delegate, with an independent vote.

The two standards will be the 189th Convention and the supplementing 201^st Recommendation adopted by the Labour Organization since its creation in 1919...(full text of press release below)

CONVENTION CONCERNING DECENT WORK FOR DOMESTIC WORKERS

The General Conference of the International Labour Organization,

Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its 100th Session on 1 June 2011, and

Mindful of the commitment of the International Labour Organization to promote decent work for all through the achievement of the goals of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, and

Recognizing the significant contribution of domestic workers to the global economy, which includes increasing paid job opportunities for women and men workers with family responsibilities, greater scope for caring for ageing populations, children and persons with a disability, and substantial income transfers within and between countries, and

Considering that domestic work continues to be undervalued and invisible and is mainly carried out by women and girls, many of whom are migrants or members of disadvantaged communities and who are particularly vulnerable to discrimination in respect of conditions of employment and of work, and to other abuses of human rights, and

Considering also that in developing countries with historically scarce opportunities for formal employment, domestic workers constitute a significant proportion of the national workforce and remain among the most marginalized, and

Recalling that international labour Conventions and Recommendations apply to all workers, including domestic workers, unless otherwise provided, and

Noting the particular relevance for domestic workers of the Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143), the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No. 156), the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181), and the Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No. 198), as well as of the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration: Non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labour migration (2006), and

Recognizing the special conditions under which domestic work is carried out that make it desirable to supplement the general standards with standards specific to domestic workers so as to enable them to enjoy their rights fully, and

Recalling other relevant international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, and in particular its Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and its Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and

Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals concerning decent work for domestic workers, which is the fourth item on the agenda of the session, and

Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention;

adopts this sixteenth day of June of the year two thousand and eleven the following Convention, which may be cited as the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011.

Article 1

For the purpose of this Convention:

(a) the term “domestic work” means work performed in or for a household or households;

(b) the term “domestic worker” means any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship;

(c) a person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis is not a domestic worker.

Article 2

1. The Convention applies to all domestic workers.

2. A Member which ratifies this Convention may, after consulting with the most representative organizations of employers and workers and, where they exist, with organizations representative of domestic workers and those representative of employers of domestic workers, exclude wholly or partly from its scope:

(a) categories of workers who are otherwise provided with at least equivalent protection;

(b) limited categories of workers in respect of which special problems of a substantial nature arise.

3. Each Member which avails itself of the possibility afforded in the preceding paragraph shall, in its first report on the application of the Convention under article 22 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, indicate any particular category of workers thus excluded and the reasons for such exclusion and, in subsequent reports, specify any measures that may have been taken with a view to extending the application of the Convention to the workers concerned.

Article 3

1. Each Member shall take measures to ensure the effective promotion and protection of the human rights of all domestic workers, as set out in this Convention.

2. Each Member shall, in relation to domestic workers, take the measures set out in this Convention to respect, promote and realize the fundamental principles and rights at work, namely:

(a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

(b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour;

(d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

3. In taking measures to ensure that domestic workers and employers of domestic workers enjoy freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, Members shall protect the right of domestic workers and employers of domestic workers to establish and, subject to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations, federations and confederations of their own choosing.

Article 4

1. Each Member shall set a minimum age for domestic workers consistent with the provisions of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), and not lower than that established by national laws and regulations for workers generally.

2. Each Member shall take measures to ensure that work performed by domestic workers who are under the age of 18 and above the minimum age of employment does not deprive them of compulsory education, or interfere with opportunities to participate in further education or vocational training.

Article 5

Each Member shall take measures to ensure that domestic workers enjoy effective protection against all forms of abuse, harassment and violence.

Article 6

Each Member shall take measures to ensure that domestic workers, like workers generally, enjoy fair terms of employment as well as decent working conditions and, if they reside in the household, decent living conditions that respect their privacy.

Article 7

Each Member shall take measures to ensure that domestic workers are informed of their terms and conditions of employment in an appropriate, verifiable and easily understandable manner and preferably, where possible, through written contracts in accordance with national laws, regulations or collective agreements, in particular:

(a) the name and address of the employer and of the worker;

(b) the address of the usual workplace or workplaces;

(d) the type of work to be performed;

(e) the remuneration, method of calculation and periodicity of payments;

(f) the normal hours of work;

(g) paid annual leave, and daily and weekly rest periods;

(h) the provision of food and accommodation, if applicable;

(i) the period of probation or trial period, if applicable;

(j) the terms of repatriation, if applicable; and

(k) terms and conditions relating to the termination of employment, including any period of notice by either the domestic worker or the employer.

Article 8

1. National laws and regulations shall require that migrant domestic workers who are recruited in one country for domestic work in another receive a written job offer, or contract of employment that is enforceable in the country in which the work is to be performed, addressing the terms and conditions of employment referred to in Article 7, prior to crossing national borders for the purpose of taking up the domestic work to which the offer or contract applies.

2. The preceding paragraph shall not apply to workers who enjoy freedom of movement for the purpose of employment under bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements, or within the framework of regional economic integration areas.

3. Members shall take measures to cooperate with each other to ensure the effective application of the provisions of this Convention to migrant domestic workers.

4. Each Member shall specify, by means of laws, regulations or other measures, the conditions under which migrant domestic workers are entitled to repatriation on the expiry or termination of the employment contract for which they were recruited.

Article 9

Each Member shall take measures to ensure that domestic workers:

(a) are free to reach agreement with their employer or potential employer on whether to reside in the household;

(b) who reside in the household are not obliged to remain in the household or with household members during periods of daily and weekly rest or annual leave; and

Article 10

1. Each Member shall take measures towards ensuring equal treatment between domestic workers and workers generally in relation to normal hours of work, overtime compensation, periods of daily and weekly rest and paid annual leave in accordance with national laws, regulations or collective agreements, taking into account the special characteristics of domestic work.

2. Weekly rest shall be at least 24 consecutive hours.

3. Periods during which domestic workers are not free to dispose of their time as they please and remain at the disposal of the household in order to respond to possible calls shall be regarded as hours of work to the extent determined by national laws, regulations or collective agreements, or any other means consistent with national practice.

Article 11

Each Member shall take measures to ensure that domestic workers enjoy minimum wage coverage, where such coverage exists, and that remuneration is established without discrimination based on sex.

Article 12

1. Domestic workers shall be paid directly in cash at regular intervals at least once a month. Unless provided for by national laws, regulations or collective agreements, payment may be made by bank transfer, bank cheque, postal cheque, money order or other lawful means of monetary payment, with the consent of the worker concerned.

2. National laws, regulations, collective agreements or arbitration awards may provide for the payment of a limited proportion of the remuneration of domestic workers in the form of payments in kind that are not less favourable than those generally applicable to other categories of workers, provided that measures are taken to ensure that such payments in kind are agreed to by the worker, are for the personal use and benefit of the worker, and that the monetary value attributed to them is fair and reasonable.

Article 13

1. Every domestic worker has the right to a safe and healthy working environment. Each Member shall take, in accordance with national laws, regulations and practice, effective measures, with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work, to ensure the occupational safety and health of domestic workers.

2. The measures referred to in the preceding paragraph may be applied progressively, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers and, where they exist, with organizations representative of domestic workers and those representative of employers of domestic workers.

Article 14

1. Each Member shall take appropriate measures, in accordance with national laws and regulations and with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work, to ensure that domestic workers enjoy conditions that are not less favourable than those applicable to workers generally in respect of social security protection, including with respect to maternity.

Article 15

1. To effectively protect domestic workers, including migrant domestic workers, recruited or placed by private employment agencies, against abusive practices, each Member shall:

(a) determine the conditions governing the operation of private employment agencies recruiting or placing domestic workers, in accordance with national laws, regulations and practice;

(b) ensure that adequate machinery and procedures exist for the investigation of complaints, alleged abuses and fraudulent practices concerning the activities of private employment agencies in relation to domestic workers;

(c) adopt all necessary and appropriate measures, within its jurisdiction and, where appropriate, in collaboration with other Members, to provide adequate protection for and prevent abuses of domestic workers recruited or placed in its territory by private employment agencies. These shall include laws or regulations that specify the respective obligations of the private employment agency and the household towards the domestic worker and provide for penalties, including prohibition of those private employment agencies that engage in fraudulent practices and abuses;

(d) consider, where domestic workers are recruited in one country for work in another, concluding bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements to prevent abuses and fraudulent practices in recruitment, placement and employment; and

(e) take measures to ensure that fees charged by private employment agencies are not deducted from the remuneration of domestic workers.

2. In giving effect to each of the provisions of this Article, each Member shall consult with the most representative organizations of employers and workers and, where they exist, with organizations representative of domestic workers and those representative of employers of domestic workers.

Article 16

Each Member shall take measures to ensure, in accordance with national laws, regulations and practice, that all domestic workers, either by themselves or through a representative, have effective access to courts, tribunals or other dispute resolution mechanisms under conditions that are not less favourable than those available to workers generally.

Article 17

1. Each Member shall establish effective and accessible complaint mechanisms and means of ensuring compliance with national laws and regulations for the protection of domestic workers.

2. Each Member shall develop and implement measures for labour inspection, enforcement and penalties with due regard for the special characteristics of domestic work, in accordance with national laws and regulations.

3. In so far as compatible with national laws and regulations, such measures shall specify the conditions under which access to household premises may be granted, having due respect for privacy.

Article 18

Each Member shall implement the provisions of this Convention, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, through laws and regulations, as well as through collective agreements or additional measures consistent with national practice, by extending or adapting existing measures to cover domestic workers or by developing specific measures for them, as appropriate.

Article 19

This Convention does not affect more favourable provisions applicable to domestic workers under other international labour Conventions.

Article 20

The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.

Article 21

1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organization whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General of the International Labour Office.

2. It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.

3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve months after the date on which its ratification is registered.

Article 22

1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.

2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention within the first year of each new period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.

Article 23

1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organization of the registration of all ratifications and denunciations that have been communicated by the Members of the Organization.

2. When notifying the Members of the Organization of the registration of the second ratification that has been communicated, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organization to the date upon which the Convention will come into force.

Article 24

The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications and denunciations that have been registered.

Article 25

At such times as it may consider necessary, the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.

Article 26

1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides:

(a) the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention,notwithstanding the provisions of Article 22, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;

(b) as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force, this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.

2. This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.

Article 27

The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.

Source: ILO Website

*****

Press release | June 16, 2011

“We are moving the standards system of the ILO into the informal economy for the first time, and this is a breakthrough of great significance,” said Juan Somavia, ILO Director-General. “History is being made.”

Conference delegates adopted the Convention on Domestic Workers (2011) by a vote of 396 to 16, with 63 abstentions and the accompanying Recommendation by a vote of 434 to 8, with 42 abstentions. The ILO is the only tripartite organization of the UN, and each of its 183 Member States is represented by two government delegates, and one employer and one worker delegate, with an independent vote.

The two standards will be the 189th Convention and the supplementing 201^st Recommendation adopted by the Labour Organization since its creation in 1919. The Convention is an international treaty that is binding on Member States that ratify it, while the Recommendation provides more detailed guidance on how to apply the Convention.

The new ILO standards set out that domestic workers around the world who care for families and households, must have the same basic labour rights as those available to other workers: reasonable hours of work, weekly rest of at least 24 consecutive hours, a limit on in-kind payment, clear information on terms and conditions of employment, as well as respect for fundamental principles and rights at work including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.

Recent ILO estimates based on national surveys and/or censuses of 117 countries, place the number of domestic workers at around 53 million. However, experts say that due to the fact that this kind of work is often hidden and unregistered, the total number of domestic workers could be as high as 100 million. In developing countries, they make up at least 4 to 12 per cent of wage employment. Around 83 per cent of these workers are women or girls and many are migrant workers.

The Convention defines domestic work as work performed in or for a household or households. While the new instruments cover all domestic workers, they provide for special measures to protect those workers who, because of their young age or nationality or live-in status, may be exposed to additional risks relative to their peers, among others.

According to ILO proceedings, the new Convention will come into force after two countries have ratified it.

“Bringing the domestic workers into the fold of our values is a strong move, for them and for all workers who aspire to decent work, but it also has strong implications for migration and of course for gender equality,” Mr. Somavia said.

In its introductory text, the new Convention says that “domestic work continues to be undervalued and invisible and is mainly carried out by women and girls, many of whom are migrants or members of disadvantaged communities and who are particularly vulnerable to discrimination in respect of conditions of employment and work, and to other abuses of human rights.”

Michelle Bachelet, Executive Director of UN Women, in her address to the Conference Committee, said that the deficit of decent work among domestic workers “can no longer be tolerated,” adding that UN Women would support the process of ratification and application of the new ILO instruments.

“We need effective and binding standards to provide decent work to our domestic workers, a clear framework to guide governments, employers and workers,” said Halimah Yacob, the Workers Vice-Chair from Singapore. She noted that the collective responsibility was to provide domestic workers with what they lacked most: recognition as workers; and respect and dignity as human beings.

Paul MacKay from New Zealand, the Employers Vice-Chair declared: “We all agree on the importance of bringing domestic work into the mainstream and responding to serious human rights concerns. All employers agree there are opportunities to do better by domestic workers and the households and families for whom they work”.

“Social dialogue has found its reflection in the results achieved here,” concluded the Chair of the Committee, Mr. H.L. Cacdac, Government delegate from the Philippines, when he closed the discussion.

“This is a truly major achievement,” said Manuela Tomei, Director of the ILO’s Conditions of Work and Employment Programme, calling the new standards “robust, yet flexible.” Ms. Tomei added that the new standards make clear that “domestic workers are neither servants nor ‘members of the family’, but workers. And after today they can no longer be considered second-class workers.”

The adoption of the new standards is the result of a decision taken in March 2008 by the ILO Governing Body to place the elaboration of an instrument on the agenda of the Conference. In 2010, the Conference held its first discussion and decided to proceed with the drafting of a Convention supplemented by a Recommendation adopted today. -ILO Press Release, 16/6/2011, 100th ILO annual Conference decides to bring an estimated 53 to 100 million domestic workers worldwide under the realm of labour standards

MALAYSIA: Stop legal action against Malaysian human rights defender for highlighting rights of migrant workers

2011-05-29T23:05:00.000-07:00

Dear friends,

We wish to share with you the following joint statement from Human Rights Now and FORUM-ASIA.

Asian Human Rights Commission
Hong Kong

-------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-FST-033-2011
May 25, 2011

A Joint Statement from Human Rights Now and FORUM-ASIA forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission

MALAYSIA: Stop legal action against Malaysian human rights defender for highlighting rights of migrant workers

23 May 2011

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and Human Rights Now express their great concern regarding the case of Mr. Charles Hector Fernandez, a Malaysian human rights lawyer, activist and blogger. We were informed that Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd., subsidiary of Asahi Kosei Japan Co. Ltd., filed a defamation law suit against Mr. Hector for raising concerns on his blog about alleged human rights and labour rights violations of 31 Burmese migrant workers.

On 8 and 9 February 2011, Mr. Hector uploaded several posts to his blog http://charleshector.blogspot.com/ on the grievances raised by the 31 Burmese workers. These workers were supplied by an outsourcing agent to work at Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd., which is based in Malaysia. The workers alleged that their wages were unlawfully deducted and monetary penalties were made for absences from work. When the workers sought for compensation and fair treatment, they were threatened with termination of employment and possible deportation back to Burma. The workers are paid by an outsourcing agent, even though Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin stated in 2010 that "employers ... should be responsible for their foreign workers. Outsourcing companies are only responsible for bringing them in. After that, employers must assume full responsibility."

Before posting about the workers' complaints on his blog, Mr. Hector sent an email to Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. for clarification and verification. The email explicitly requested that “if there is anything that you would like to correct, kindly revert to me immediately. An urgent response would be appreciated. Failing to hear from you, I would take it that the allegations of the workers are true”. The company did not respond and Mr. Hector went ahead and posted the complaints of the Burmese migrant workers on his blog, advocating for the protection of the 31 workers in general and those workers who were facing immediate deportation in particular.

On 14 February 2011, Mr. Hector received a letter from the law firm, T.S Teoh & Partners, on behalf of the Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. in which they accused him of having “committed defamation” for publishing "untrue allegations" about Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. The company demanded Mr. Hector to pay 10 million Malaysian ringgit (3,309,600 USD) within seven days, to immediately withdraw the posts and to write an apology which should be published on his blog within 24 hours, and appear in all major English newspapers to be circulated nationwide within three days.

A week later, on 21 February 2011, Mr. Hector received an ex-parte court order obtained by Asahi Kosei’s lawyers, requesting Mr. Hector to remove all the said blog posts immediately and to stop from making further public statements on his blog or other media about the legal action being taken against him and the plight of Burmese migrant workers.

On 11 April 2011, the court affirmed, after three hearings, a previous narrow order which restricted Charles Hector from communicating through his blog and Twitter account on the case of the 31 Burmese migrant workers until the end of the trial. The next hearing is scheduled on 25 May 2011 and the trial is set for 28 and 29 June 2011.

We are gravely concerned with the response of Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. to file a defamation suit against Charles Hector instead of replying to his email to clarify the matter and investigating the allegations of the workers.

On 12 March 2011, the Malaysian Bar unanimously approved a motion in support of Mr. Hector. In their motion, the Bar had emphasized: "public interest also places an obligation on any person that knows of any human rights violations to not just stand by but to take the necessary steps to see that such violations end, and to ensure that the victims do get justice. This principle is also recognized, and is also evident in many laws in Malaysia, including the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2010, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, and the Criminal Procedure Code."

We believe that as a human rights defender, Mr. Charles Hector acted on behalf of the workers who are not familiar with their rights in Malaysia and helped them in lodging a complaint with SUHAKAM, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, which has sent their recommendations to the Labour Department about the case.

The defamation charges and the lawsuit filed against Charles Hector hinder him in his work as a human rights defender, advocating the rights of the 31 Burmese migrant workers. The legal action against Mr. Hector threatens free speech in Malaysia, by sending the wrong message to other human rights defenders, organizations and ‘whistle blowers’ who report such violations and might cause them to refrain from exposing abuses committed by businesses in Malaysia.

Moreover, Article 6 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders recognizes that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others … freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms…”. The government of Malaysia has the corresponding obligation to take all necessary measures to protect defenders like Mr. Charles Hector against any retaliation as a consequence of his legitimate right to free speech and use it to expose human rights violations.

We strongly call on Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. and Asahi Kosei Japan Co. Ltd. to

1. Withdraw the legal action against Mr. Charles Hector immediately and unconditionally;

2. Launch immediate investigations into the authenticity of the allegations that Charles Hector has brought to light;

3. Act promptly to prevent any human rights abuse against migrant workers employed by the company. Asahi Kosei has the responsibility to ensure that all legally guaranteed worker’s rights and benefits are enjoyed equally by all workers of Asahi Kosei.

We also call on the Malaysian and Japanese Government to

1. Ensure that Charles Hector as a human rights defender can freely conduct his legitimate activities that promote and protect human rights, in accordance with the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders;

2. Act against attempts by employers to evade their responsibility to protect their workers’ rights under the guise of employment relationship.

For further information please contact

Ms. Cecile Gaa of the Human Rights Defenders Department, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), email: hrd@forum-asia.org Tel. no. + 66 26532940 ext. 402

Ms. Kazuko Ito, Secretary General, Human Rights Now, email: office@hrn.or.jp

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia.

-----------------------------

Asian Human Rights Commission
#701A Westley Square,
48 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon,
Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339
Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367

URL: humanrights.asia
twitter/youtube/facebook: humanrightsasia

Australia in controversial refugee swap (DVB, 9/5/2011)

2011-05-14T01:52:00.000-07:00

Australia in controversial refugee swap

By JOSEPH ALLCHIN
Published: 9 May 2011

Burmese are seen among detained migrants at Malaysia's Semenyih camp (Reuters)

Australia has struck a deal with the Malaysian government to accept thousands of refugees, mostly Burmese, living in the country in return for Malaysia taking on the burden of hundreds of boatpeople that arrive in Australia each year.

Canberra’s Labour government announced that it will send around 800 asylum seekers to camps in Malaysia over the next four years, whilst taking 4,000 UN-processed refugees who live there in crowded camps awaiting resettlement.

Australia will foot the bill for the deal, paying Malaysia a reported $AUS300 million ($US322.8 million). Immigration minister Chris Bowen said in a statement that the main message of the so-called Regional Cooperation Framework was for asylum seekers heading to Australia to “[not] get on that boat.”

Thousands of asylum seekers arrive by boat in northern Australia each year after gruelling, often hazardous, sea journeys. But the deal, Bowen said, “will help put people smugglers out of business and prevent asylum seekers making the dangerous journey to Australia by boat.”

Under the arrangement, a statement said, those send to Malaysia would be placed at the “back of the queue” for resettlement. This comes despite the falling numbers of ‘boatpeople’, as sea-bound refugees are often termed – the Independent newspaper notes that 940 asylum seekers arrived by boat this year compared with some 2,000 in the corresponding period last year.

The agreement was a result of the 4th Bali Process Regional Ministerial Conference on people trafficking in March. Activist Pranom Somwong alleged that the deal used anti-trafficking rhetoric, when in actual fact the Australian government was seeking to placate a distinctly anti-immigrant sentiment amongst Australia’s population, many of whom, including Prime Minster Julia Gillard and leader of the opposition Tony Abbot, are recent immigrants themselves.

The two, both of whom or who’s families arrived under Australia’s previous immigration policy, termed “White Australia”, which officially ended in 1973, have themselves been accused of racism.

Ian Rentoul, from the Refugee Action Coalition of Australia, earlier told DVB that “the racism of the Labour party is quite disguised”, whereas “the racism of the Liberals is very much on display”. Liberal leader Abbott is famous for statements such as “the great prize of Australian citizenship is insufficiently appreciated and given away too lightly”.

Gillard defended herself from critics when she told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: “For people to say they’re anxious about border security doesn’t make them intolerant. It certainly doesn’t make them a racist – it means they’re expressing a genuine view.”

Of the bilateral agreement, Abbot told the BBC that “Today we’ve seen a panicked announcement from a government which is proving yet again that it’s both untrustworthy and incompetent,” despite the policy being appropriated from Abbot’s right leaning Liberal party.

Australia has been criticised in the past for the practice of offshore detention camps started by former Liberal party Prime Minister John Howard, who built various immigration centres in the Pacific nations of Papua New Guinea and Nauru. He said in 1988 that “it would be in our immediate-term interest and supporting of social cohesion if it [Asian immigration] were slowed down a little.”

These centres have also been under the spotlight, with the thousands detained each year often kept in conditions that have sparked numerous protests, with one Burmese man earlier this year setting himself alight.

Malaysia-based human rights lawyer Charles Hector has asserted that Malaysia is already home to roughly five million undocumented migrants, with those unfortunate enough to find themselves in detention centres also regularly protesting the dire conditions.

The Malaysian government is routinely criticised for its refusal to become a signatory to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), earlier told DVB that detainees were subject to malnutrition and disease, whilst government officials had profited from the trade in people. The US government has repeatedly condemned Malaysia’s track record on human trafficking.

Recent cases have also painted a negative picture of the Malaysian justice system. Lawyer Hector is currently in court facing charges of defamation for publicly defending Burmese migrant workers who were not receiving their contractual dues. The company in question, Asahi Kosei, hit back by saying that the workers were not employed by them, but rather brokers, a system that critics say abrogates legal responsibility from employers. - Democratic Voice of Burma, 9/5/2011, Australia in controversial refugee swap

Charles Hector's case mentioned in UK House of Commons Hansard

2011-05-13T10:19:00.000-07:00

Charles Hector's case mentioned in UK House of Commons Hansard -9/5/2011

An extract from the Hansard of the House of Commons containing references to Charles Hector's case, at columns 988W-989W.

The relevant section is also set out below.

Malaysia: Human Rights

Paul Blomfield: To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has
made representations to the government of Malaysia
concerning Mr Charles Hector Fernandez; what his
most recent assessment is of the situation of human
rights campaigners in Malaysia; and if he will make a
statement. [54621]

Mr Jeremy Browne: The EU Delegation in Kuala
Lumpur has met with Charles Hector Fernandez and
has been following his trial on behalf of member states.
The Malaysian Government is not a party to the case,
which is a civil matter between Mr Fernandez and a
Japanese company. The UK has therefore made no
representations to the Malaysian Government, but our
high commission in Kuala Lumpur continues to monitor
the trial.

Malaysia has a national framework for the protection
of human rights enshrined in its constitution. However,
we remain concerned that human rights defenders who
challenge the Government can suffer harassment and
arrest. EU missions in Kuala Lumpur met local human
rights defenders in March 2010 and maintain a dialogue
with them. Our high commission also maintains contacts
with human rights defenders and regularly speaks to
them and to the national human rights commission
(SUHAKAM) on a range of human rights issues.

Malaysian Detention Centres are already overcrowded - so why accept to house asylum seekers already in Australia?

2011-05-09T04:49:00.001-07:00

Malaysian Detention Centres are already overcrowded - so why accept to house asylum seekers already in Australia?

Malaysian detention centers currently housing alleged undocumented migrants, which would include asylum seekers and others, are already overcrowded - and detainees and civil society have been protesting for better and more humanitarian detention conditions.

When complaints of detainees fall on 'deaf' ears of the detaining authority and Malaysian government, there have been 'protests' - some of which have even resulted in fires and breakouts. Most recent have been the protests in the Lengeng Detention Centre. [See earlier posts:-Lenggeng Immigration Depot breakout - Investigate the root causes]

When asylum seekers reach Australia and claim for asylum, Australia should be housing these asylum seekers in Australia while the Australian government processes their applications....It is odd that they do not want to house them in Australia and was seeking other countries to house them...

Malaysia also have hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers and refugees that come to Malaysia seeking asylum and refugee status - but whilst their application are being processed by the relevant bodies, they are all in Malaysia. Malaysia does not try to 'group them and dump them' in some other country....

There are already about 5 million undocumented migrants in Malaysia, which also includes tens of thousands of asylum seekers and refugees - so, I am shocked to learn that Malaysia has agreed to accept about 800 more asylum seekers from Australia. (This number would increase as more and more asylum seekers go to Australia).

Why does Malaysia do this? The report says that in response Australia will accept 4,000 refugees per year. As a member of the UN, Australia already has an obligation to accept asylum seekers and refugees - and we already have tens of thousands of persons already accorded refugee status still waiting to be re-located in a 3rd country, like Australia who has the space and the capability to accept refugees. We have even more persons (maybe over 100,000 more) still waiting for asylum seeker/refugee status.

Even after persons get refugee(or asylum seeker status), and those still in the process of application are not provided housing and board in Malaysia, and they are just left to fend for themselves. Not having the right to legally work, and given the fact that Malaysian law does not recognize refugees and asylum seekers, they are all treated as 'undocumented' migrants who will be subject to arrest, detention and even deportation.

Malaysia already has its own problems - and it makes no sense that Malaysia has now agreed to accept these persons who went to Australia seeking asylum and refugee status.

Further, would it also not be discriminatory and prejudicial when these persons in Australia seeking asylum are Malaysians - surely the return of Malaysian asylum seekers to Australia would be an act of 'non-refoulement' ...and an act contrary to universal principles and law.

Australia must revoke this agreement and keep their asylum seekers, now already in Australia, in Australia - not send them to some other country.

May 07, 2011

Malaysia, Australia Agree On Cooperative Transfer Of Asylum Seekers

KUALA LUMPUR, May 7 (Bernama) -- In a move to combat people smuggling and irregular migration in the Asia-Pacific region, Malaysia and Australia today announced a new bilateral arrangement which entails among others, an agreement for a cooperative transfer of asylum seekers.

In a statement issued by both governments, they said that under the new arrangement, asylum seekers arriving by sea in Australia would be transferred to Malaysia.

In exchange, Australia would expand its humanitarian programme and take on a greater burden-sharing responsibility for resettling refugees currently residing in Malaysia, the statement said.

Both prime ministers agreed that the core elements of the arrangement would include the transfer of 800 irregular maritime arrivals, who arrived in Australia after the date of effect of the arrangement, to Malaysia, for refugee status determination.

"In return, over four years, Australia will resettle 4,000 refugees already currently residing in Malaysia," the statement added.

The statement added that the transferees would not receive any preferential treatment over asylum seekers already in Malaysia.

"Transferees will be provided with the opportunity to have their asylum claims considered and those in need of international protection will not be refouled," it said.

Both governments also pledged to treat transferees "with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards."

Australia would fully fund the arrangement, it added.

Both leaders said the bilateral agreement signed by both of them was part of the Regional Cooperation Framework agreed to at the Bali Process Ministerial Conference in Bali, Indonesia on March 30 this year.

They said that both countries were working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to operationalise the arrangement.

Najib and Gillard said the complex nature of irregular migration, which they said was closely linked to the crimes of human trafficking and people smuggling, cannot be solved by acting alone but "must be tackled by countries forming cooperative arrangements under the auspices of regional and international frameworks."

They said the implementation of this one-off pilot project would be important "to undermine the business model of transnational criminal syndicates" particularly in people smuggling and human trafficking in this region.

The Malaysian and Australian governments had asked senior officials to finalise a memorandum of understanding in the near future to set out detailed arrangements, the statement added.

-- BERNAMA

Australia must call off asylum seeker “outsourcing” deal with Malaysia

2011-05-09T04:47:00.000-07:00

Press Release : Australia must call off asylum seeker “outsourcing” deal with Malaysia

On 7.5.2011, Australia and Malaysia announced a bilateral agreement which sought to transfer up to 800 asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia by sea to Malaysia while their asylum claims are being process by the UNHCR. In return, Australia will resettle 4,000 refugees currently residing in Malaysia over a period of four years.

While Australia’s agreement to accept more refugees for resettlement is commendable, Lawyers for Liberty is however extremely shocked and concerned by Australia’s plan to forcefully deport asylum seekers and “outsource” its international obligation to protect refugees as defined under international law including the 1951 Refugee Convention which Australia is a party to.

Let there be no doubt: Malaysia has a horrendous track record – infamous for its ill and brutal treatment of refugees and other undocumented migrants and has been consistently ranked as one of the world’s worst place for refugees to be in.

Malaysia is not a state party to the Refugee Convention and in the absence of a comprehensive national legal and administrative framework for the protection of refugees, this transfer deal will certainly violate the rights of the refugees including the right not to be forcefully deported; the right to life, liberty and security of the person; and the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

In Malaysia, refugees and asylum seekers are still treated as undocumented migrants and subjected to harsh immigration laws and policies. Without documents, they are unable to work legally and live in perpetual fear of raids, arrest and harassment. Consequently, they live in the margins of society, constantly in hiding and living in poverty.

When arrested they are detained at detention centres for several months (sometimes even years) before being charged, jailed, whipped (men only) and deported, mainly to the Thai border – and some find themselves sold to human traffickers.

In May and September 2009, eight Burmese detainees died in two detention centres due to Leptospirosis, an infectious disease caused by water or food contaminated with animal urine. Detention conditions are deplorable and inhumane – overcrowding, sweltering, lack bedding, poor hygiene and sanitation, insufficient and poor quality food, irregular access to clean water and medical treatment, all of which fall far short of minimum international standards. Serious abuse by detention centre staff is also common, including arbitrary beatings.

The then Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar reported to Parliament that between 1999 and 2008, there were 2,571 detainee deaths in prisons, rehabilitation centres and immigration detention centres. In December 2008, former Suhakam Commissioner Datuk Siva Subramaniam said 1,300 foreigners died in detention during the past six years due to lack of medical treatment and neglect.

How can the Australian government be blind to Malaysia’s severe and brutal treatment of undocumented migrants and refugees and “outsource” its responsibility, without seriously undermining the rights, well being and safety of the refugees?

Australia, being a state party to the Refugee Convention, instead of working hand in hand with Malaysia to punish and deter refugees, should strive to formulate policies that are protective of refugees and consistent with its international obligation. It can start by calling off this terrible outsourcing deal.

Issued by Lawyers for Liberty

9 May 2011

Fadiah

109 Undocumented Migrants 'Protest' & Break out of Lenggeng Detention Centre..

2011-04-05T01:35:00.000-07:00

Let's get beyond the fire - and look at the main reasons for this incident at the Immigration Detention Centre, and again we see..

"Investigations show that they were dissatisfied with what they perceived as cramped living conditions, the food and long detention periods," he said.

Abdul Manan said it may well be that many of them had lost patience over the long process needed to settle them in third countries under the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

109 Immigrants Escape From Detention Centre

SEREMBAN, April 5 (Bernama) -- A group of 109 immigration detainees rioted and set a building on fire before escaping from the Lenggeng Immigration Detention Centre last night.

Using aerial surveillance and tracker dogs, the authorities managed to capture 23 of them.

Negeri Sembilan deputy police chief Datuk Abdul Manan Mohd Hassan said besides burning down a building, the group also rammed a nearby gate.

"We've set up a special team to determine how the fire was started. They made their escape via the oil palm plantation located behind the facility," he told reporters at the scene here Tuesday.

He was confident that more escapees would be apprehended as they had only the dark forest cover to evade the authorities and, during the daytime, it would be difficult for them to access public transport due to road blocks, police cars patrolling the area as well as aerial surveillance.

Abdul Manan disclosed that most of the escapees were Myanmar nationals who were joined by a handful of Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Iranians, Vietnamese and Thais.

"Investigations show that they were dissatisfied with what they perceived as cramped living conditions, the food and long detention periods," he said.

Abdul Manan said it may well be that many of them had lost patience over the long process needed to settle them in third countries under the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

"Some of them have been in detention for three to 12 months," he said.

The facility had 348 male and 192 women detainees at the time of the incident. None of the women were involved.

Four fire engines were at the scene to control the blaze. There were no reports of injuries.

-- BERNAMA, 5/4/2011, 109 Immigrants Escape From Detention Centre

Illegal immigrants set fire to Malaysia detention centre; 109 escape but 30 recaptured

By The Associated Press – 2 hours ago

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — A Malaysian official says more than 100 illegal immigrants escaped from a detention centre after starting a fire that partially gutted the facility.

Home Ministry official Mohamed Asri Yusof says authorities recaptured 30 of the 109 detainees who broke out of the camp in central Negri Sembilan state late Monday. Most are from Myanmar.

Mohamed Asri said Tuesday authorities are unsure how the detainees managed to start a blaze. About 1,000 other detainees remain in custody, and no injuries were immediately reported.

The incident could refocus attention on conditions at detention centres. Activists have long said such facilities are overcrowded with detainees awaiting deportation after being arrested for illegally entering Malaysia or overstaying. - The Canadian Press, 5/4/2011, Illegal immigrants set fire to Malaysia detention centre; 109 escape but 30 recaptured

Electronic Industry Code of Conduct - something we can rely on to get justice or is it a 'mere puff'?

2011-03-19T06:21:00.000-07:00

Here, again I have extracted the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct, and have highlighted portions relating to worker rights.

Would companies in the supply chain who resort to using workers supplied by some other entity, or attempt to avoid employment relationships by some means, including 'triangular employment relationship' be bound to ensure protection of worker rights, even for those workers supplied by some other 'contractor for labour' or outsourcing agent still be bound by this Code of Conduct? I believe they are bound.

In Malaysia, companies that are bound by this code certainly must pay attention to Clause A(1) as many employers do wrongly hold on the passports of their migrant workers - like a 'lease' to ensure subservience and total control of the freedom of these workers. When confronted with authorities, migrant workers who are not able to produce their original passports very often get harassed, arrested and detained by police and other enforcement officers, and they will have to totally depend on these employers to come with their passports to secure their release.. The Code clearly does not allow this.

Clause A(4) of the Code is also breached when some employers deduct wages by reason of late attendance, and also absence. Not only will workers not get paid for the day that he is absent, but he is further subjected to a deduction which sometimes is more than 2 days wages as a penalty.

So, is this Code real, and can be relied on - or is it just like any other 'advertisement' - a mere puff?

ELECTRONIC INDUSTRY CODE OF CONDUCT

The Electronic Industry Code of Conduct establishes standards to ensure that working conditions in the electronics industry supply chain are safe, that workers are treated with respect and dignity, and that business operations are environmentally responsible

A. LABOR

Participants are committed to uphold the human rights of workers, and to treat them with dignity and respect as understood by the international community.

The recognized standards, as set out in the annex, were used as references in preparing the Code and may be a useful source of additional information.

The labor standards are:

1) Freely Chosen Employment

Forced, bonded or indentured labor or involuntary prison labor shall not to be used. All work will be voluntary, and workers shall be free to leave upon reasonable notice. Workers shall not be required to hand over government-issued identification, passports or work permits to the Participant or Labor Agent as a condition of employment.

2) Child Labor Avoidance
Child labor is not to be used in any stage of manufacturing. The term “child” refers to any person under the age of 15 (or 14 where the law of the country permits), or under the age for completing compulsory education, or under the minimum age for employment in the country, whichever is greatest. The use of legitimate workplace apprenticeship programs, which comply with all laws and regulations, is supported. Workers under the age of 18 shall not perform work that is likely to jeopardize the health or safety of young workers.

3) Working Hours
Studies of business practices clearly link worker strain to reduced productivity, increased turnover and increased injury and illness. Workweeks are not to exceed the maximum set by local law. Further, a workweek should not be more than 60 hours per week, including overtime, except in emergency or unusual situations. Workers shall be allowed at least one day off per seven-day week.

4) Wages and Benefits
Compensation paid to workers shall comply with all applicable wage laws, including those relating to minimum wages, overtime hours and legally mandated benefits. In compliance with local laws, workers shall be compensated for overtime at pay rates greater than regular hourly rates. Deductions from wages as a disciplinary measure shall not be permitted. The basis on which workers are being paid is to be provided in a timely manner via pay stub or similar documentation.

5) Humane Treatment
The Participant’s disciplinary policies and procedures shall be clearly defined and communicated to workers. There is to be no harsh and inhumane treatment, including any sexual harassment, sexual abuse, corporal punishment, mental or physical coercion or verbal abuse of workers: nor is there to be the threat of any such treatment

6) Non-Discrimination
Participants should be committed to a workforce free of harassment and unlawful discrimination. Companies shall not engage in discrimination based on race, color, age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, pregnancy, religion, political affiliation, union membership or marital status in hiring and employment practices such as promotions, rewards, and access to training. In addition, workers or potential workers should not be subjected to medical tests that could be used in a discriminatory way.

7) Freedom of Association
Open communication and direct engagement between workers and management are the most effective ways to resolve workplace and compensation issues. Participants are to respect the rights of workers to associate freely, join or not join labor unions, seek representation, join workers’ councils in accordance with local laws. Workers shall be able to communicate openly with management regarding working conditions without fear of reprisal, intimidation or harassment.

B. HEALTH and SAFETY

Participants recognize that in addition to minimizing the incidence of work-related injury and illness, a safe and healthy work environment enhances the quality of products and services, consistency of production and worker retention and morale. Participants also recognize that ongoing worker input and education is essential to identifying and solving health and safety issues in the workplace.

Recognized management systems such as OHSAS 18001 and ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health were used as references in preparing the Code and may be a useful source of additional information.

The health and safety standards are:

1) Occupational Safety

Worker exposure to potential safety hazards (e.g., electrical and other energy sources, fire, vehicles, and fall hazards) are to be controlled through proper design, engineering and administrative controls, preventative maintenance and safe work procedures (including lockout/tagout), and ongoing safety training. Where hazards cannot be adequately controlled by these means, workers are to be provided with appropriate, well-maintained, personal protective equipment. Workers shall not be disciplined for raising safety
concerns.

2) Emergency Preparedness
Emergency situations and events are to be identified and assessed, and their impact minimized by implementing emergency plans and response procedures, including: emergency reporting, employee notification and evacuation procedures, worker training and drills, appropriate fire detection and suppression equipment, adequate exit facilities and recovery plans.

3) Occupational Injury and Illness
Procedures and systems are to be in place to prevent, manage, track and report occupational injury and illness, including provisions to: a) encourage worker reporting; b) classify and record injury and illness cases; c) provide necessary medical treatment; d) investigate cases and implement corrective actions to eliminate their causes; and e) facilitate return of workers to work.

4) Industrial Hygiene
Worker exposure to chemical, biological and physical agents is to be identified, evaluated, and controlled. Engineering or administrative controls must be used to control overexposures. When hazards cannot be adequately controlled by such means, worker health is to be protected by appropriate personal protective equipment programs.

5) Physically Demanding Work
Worker exposure to the hazards of physically demanding tasks, including manual material handling and heavy or repetitive lifting, prolonged standing and highly repetitive or forceful assembly tasks is to be identified, evaluated and controlled.

6) Machine Safeguarding
Production and other machinery is to be evaluated for safety hazards. Physical guards, interlocks and barriers are to be provided and properly maintained where machinery presents an injury hazard to workers.

7) Sanitation, Food, and Housing
Workers are to be provided with ready access to clean toilet facilities, potable water and sanitary food preparation, storage, and eating facilities. Worker dormitories provided by the Participant or a labor agent are to be maintained clean and safe, and provided with appropriate emergency egress, hot water for bathing and showering, and adequate heat and ventilation and reasonable personal space along with reasonable entry and exit privileges.

....D(8) Worker Feedback and Participation
Ongoing processes to assess employees’ understanding of and obtain feedback on practices and conditions covered by this Code and to foster continuous improvement.

Those companies who are bound by this Code

Would have good if we had also detailed information about the branch and group companies of each of these brands, and their address? Would be good also if we had some information about the supply chain? A method or mechanisms which members of the public, consumers and workers could easily use to raising complaints with regard to non compliance with the Code would also be good

Hitachi's Code of Conduct - A another method to get justice for workers,...

2011-03-18T23:17:00.000-07:00

Many companies and corporations are declaring to the world that they will and do respect human rights, worker rights,... and, that they also expect others who they have dealings with to also do the same, including suppliers. As an example, we look at the Hitachi Group Code of conduct, highlighting especially the parts relevant to worker rights and employment relationship.

A listing of Hitachi brand and group of companies in Malaysia bound by this code of conduct is listed below.. It is sad that I could not find a list of companies in Malaysia that are supplying to Hitachi, who will also be bound by this Code of Conduct. Maybe Hitachi should supply the list so that we can all help monitor these companies to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct

To be more effective, maybe the Hitachi Group may want to put in place a mechanism of reporting and complaint that workers and others can use to bring to the notice of the Hitachi group of any non-compliance with their own Code of Conduct, so that they can act on it to ensure not just compliance but also to bring about an effective remedy to all affected by the non-compliance. It may not be sufficient to just to sanction the errant company, but Hitachi must go further to ensure justice be done to those victims of non-compliance as well.

Code of Conduct
The Hitachi Group Codes of Conduct have been established as specific codes of conduct that apply to all companies of the Hitachi Group. Under the leadership of top management, we will thoroughly implement the Codes of Conduct to ensure that all our business activities are conducted on the basis of corporate ethics and compliance, in accordance with “Basics and Ethics.”

1.3 (3) We will select suppliers appropriately and fairly. In selecting suppliers, in addition to considering the quality, reliability, delivery dates and prices of materials as well as the management stability and technological development strengths of the suppliers, we will also give due consideration to their fulfillment of social responsibility including fair and highly transparent information disclosure, observance of laws and social norms, respect of human rights, elimination of unfair discrimination concerning employment and workplaces, elimination of child labor and forced labor, environmental protection activities, social contribution activities, creation of pleasant workplaces, and sharing of awareness about social responsibility with business partner.
4.1 Promoting Respect of Human Rights
(1)We will respect international standards of conduct regarding human rights, and strive to ensure that we do not engage in any conduct that obstructs or interferes with human rights.
4.2 Eliminating Discrimination
(1)We will respect every person's character and individuality in the recruitment and treatment of employees, the conduct of commercial transactions, and all other company activities, and not engage in any acts that impair individual dignity or discriminate on the basis of sex, age, nationality, race, ethnicity, ideology, belief, religion, social status, family origin, disease, disability, etc.
4.3 Respect of Human Rights in Information Management
(1)We will establish information ethics based on consideration of human rights and the maintenance of security in information handling, to prevent in advance the emergence of problems from personal information leaks, computer viruses, and unauthorized access.
4.4 Respect of Basic Rights at Work
(1)We will advance employment with proper consideration for corporate social responsibility. We will hire employees in accordance with the governing domestic, foreign and local laws in each country and region. We will not use child labor that employs children below the minimum working age or coerced labor that is against the will of the workers.

(2)We will conduct procurement with proper consideration for corporate social responsibility, and will not procure goods or services from enterprises that utilize child labor or forced labor.

(3)Considering the laws and regulations and labor practices in each nation and region, and respecting the basic rights of employees presented as the principles of the United Nations Global Compact, we will strive to have employees and managers better understand each other's problems and resolve issues jointly through genuine and constructive dialogue.

5.4 Arranging a Work Environment That Draws Out Employee Strengths
(1)We will comply with the relevant labor laws and regulations governing employment, personnel affairs, working conditions, wages and other employment terms, etc.

(2)We will respect the human rights of individual employees, and manage personnel records strictly with close attention to protecting personal information and privacy rights. We will absolutely refrain from any sort of sexual harassment or power harassment that violates human rights.

(3)We will strive to secure workplace safety based on the approach of giving priority to the protection of safety and health above all else.

(4)We will act to promote physical and mental health. We will give consideration not only to our own health, but also to the health of those around us.

(5)We will work to create workplaces where every individual employee can work with the sense that his or her work is worthwhile. We will support a work-life balance by realizing diverse working styles and using various types of vacation systems. We will also strive to create a workplace environment where employees can take leaves for pregnancy, childbirth, child-raising, and family nursing care as necessary.

(6)We will always strive to pursue self-improvement and make our best efforts so that we can manifest our greatest potential. Superiors will give their subordinates appropriate management, guidance, and training to extend their capabilities.

Enacted on August 5 , 2010

What is the Global Compact?

The United Nations Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.

Human Rights

The first two principles of the UN Global Compact, which are derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are:

Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: Business should make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Human rights remains one of the most challenging areas of corporate citizenship. In part, this is because human rights have traditionally been the concern of states, and international human rights law has generally been addressed to them only. As more companies come to realize their legal, moral and/or commercial need to address human rights issues within their own operations and activities, they are confronted with a number of challenges. For example, there is the need to come to grips with the human rights framework and how a company’s own activities might relate to it. In addition, companies are often uncertain how to avoid complicity in human rights abuse and where the boundaries of their human rights responsibility lie.

Whatever one's stance in the ongoing business and human rights debate, it is clear that there is a keen demand for tools and guidance to help companies with their implementation efforts. The Global Compact Office hopes to bring more clarity to this debate by highlighting the relevance of human rights for business, demonstrating the business case for human rights, emphasizing practical solutions, and pointing to useful tools and guidance materials. Our goal is to show that advancing human rights is not just about managing risks and meeting standards and expectations, it is also about realizing new opportunities.

Labour

The Global Compact's labour principles are derived from the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998):

Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Hitachi Brand and Group Companies in Malaysia

Hitachi Asia (M) Sdn Bhd

Suite 17.3, Level 17, Menara IMC, (Letter Box No.5),

No.8, Jalan Sultan Ismail,

50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Clarion (M) Sdn Bhd

Phase 3, Free Industrial Zone,

11900, Bayan Lepas,

Penang, Malaysia

Crystal Precision (M) Sdn Bhd

Phase 3, Free Industrial Zone,

11900, Bayan Lepas,

Penang, Malaysia

Hitachi Air Conditioning Products (M) Sdn. Bhd

Lot 10, Jalan Kemajuan, Bangi Industrial Estate,

43650 Bandar Baru Bangi,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Hitachi Cable Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.

Unit 1.1, Level 3, Blok C, The Mines Waterfront Business Park,

No. 3, Jalan Tasik, The Mines Resort City,

43300 Seri Kembangan,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Hitachi Cable (Johor) Sdn Bhd

Plot 40, Kawasan Perindustrian Senai,

81400, Senai,

Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia.

Hitachi Cable PS Techno (M) Sdn Bhd

PT. 111, Senawang Industrial Estate,

70450 Seremban,

Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Malaysia

Hitachi Chemical (Johor) Sdn Bhd

PLO 458, Jalan Keluli 10,

81700 Pasir Gudang,

Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia

Hitachi Chemical (M) Sdn Bhd

Plot 501, Prai Industrial Estate,

13600 Prai, Penang, Malaysia

Hitachi Construction Machinery (M) Sdn Bhd

Lot 7, Jalan SS 13/2, Subang Jaya Industrial Estate,

47500 Petaling Jaya,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Hitachi Data Systems Sdn Bhd

B-10-1, Level 10, Tower B, Menara UOA Bangsar,

No. 5, Jalan Bangsar Utama 1,

59000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Hitachi Electronic Products (M) Sdn Bhd

Lot 12, Jalan Kemajuan, Bangi Industrial Estate,

43650 Bandar Baru Bangi,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Hitachi Elevator Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd

Suite 2112, Level 21, Plaza Pengkalan, Jalan Tiong,

3rd Mile, Off Jalan Ipoh,

51100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Asia, Pte. Ltd.

2-26-B, NB Plaza 3000, Jalan Baru,

13700 Prai, Penang, Malaysia

Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Malaysia Sdn. Bhd

Sama Jaya Free Industrial Zone,

93450 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia

Hitachi High-Technologies IPC (M) Sdn Bhd

Letter Box No. 183, 33rd. Floor, UBN Tower,

10 Jalan P. Ramlee,

50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Hitachi Industrial Equipment (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Lot 8, Jalan Solok Hishamuddin 6,

Kawasan Perusahaan Selat Klang Utara,

42000 Pelabuhan Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Hitachi International Treasury (M) Sdn Bhd

Suite 17.3, Level 17, Menara IMC, No.8,

Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Hitachi Koki (M) Sdn Bhd

Plo 53, Kawasan Perindustrian Senai (II),

Karung Berkunci No.114, 81400 Senai,

Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia

Hitachi Sales (M) Sdn Bhd

Lot 12, Jalan Kemajuan, Bangi Industrial Estate,

43650 Bandar Baru Bangi,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Hitachi Transport System (M) Sdn Bhd

Lot 7, Jalan P/2, Bangi Industrial Estate,

43650 Bandar Baru Bangi,

Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Maxell Tohshin (M) Sdn Bhd

Lot 1, Batu Berendam Free Trade Zone Phase III,

Batu Berendam,

75350 Melaka Darul Azim, Malaysia

MHPT Engineering Sdn Bhd

Lot 2.5.2, Level 2, PNB Darby Park (Retail),

No. 10, Jalan Binjai,

50450 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

MHPT Engineering Sdn Bhd (JB Office)

No.11, Jalan Impian Emas 6, Taman Impian Emas,

81300 Skudai, Johor Darul Takzim, Malaysia

Media Statement: 79 Groups : '...withdraw intended legal action against Charles Hector "

2011-03-09T23:50:00.000-08:00

Joint Media Statement - 16/2/2011

We, the undersigned civil society groups, are gravely concerned over the demands and threat of legal action for defamation against human rights lawyer, activist and blogger Charles Hector by Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. According to a letter to Hector from the firm’s lawyers dated 11 February 2011, the company is demanding RM10 million from him within seven days as damages for libel. Failing which, he is being threatened with a defamation suit.

The company was reacting to postings in Hector’s blog that highlighted the plight of 31 Burmese migrant workers in Asahi Kosei who raised their grievances to their employer, and the reactions thereafter that included threats, termination and even attempted deportation back to Burma, Asahi Kosei is also demanding from Hector the removal of the blog postings and a public apology to the company to be published on his blog and in all major national English newspapers.

According to the joint media statement titled “Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd must respect Human Rights and Workers’ Rights. Reinstate Thiha Soe and Aung San without Loss of Benefits” which 82 migration and human rights organisations worldwide have endorsed (as at 16 February 2011), the Myanmar workers had made many complaints regarding non-payment of agreed wages and unlawful deductions from their wages as well as alterations of terms and conditions of work.

The workers, who confirmed the facts of their complaints, also alleged that they had been harassed by management “agents” (employees) and forced to agree to unfavourable terms and conditions including paying a penalty of RM50 per day of absence (RM50 for two days under new contract terms), which was far more than their basic pay of RM20 per day (RM23 per day under new contract terms). The workers also wanted paid medical leave, which is an entitlement in law. The migrant workers concerned were also preparing to lodge a complaint with the Labour Department to help resolve the problems they claimed to face.

Hector disclosed in a blog posting on 15 February that he had sent two e-mails on 8 and 9 February to the company raising the workers problems with them but he did not receive any reply from Asahi Kosei to refute the contents of the two e-mails or to deny its involvement in the dispute. Sadly, the company’s first and only response was made through its lawyer’s letter of 11 February, as mentioned above.

Asahi Kosei also claimed through its lawyers that it is not the employer of the Myanmar workers concerned and has no obligation to pay their wages directly to them or to supply accommodation or household appliances and utilities to them. The firm claims that the outsourcing agent (who has not been identified by the company) is the real employer of the migrant workers and thus has responsibility over them.

Asahi Kosei, therefore, alleges that Hector has committed libel by publicising the issue in his blog and naming the firm as the employer of the Myanmar migrant workers concerned.

We, the undersigned groups, call on Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd. to review and withdraw its demand and intended legal action against Charles Hector. It is against public interest to go after human rights activists, bloggers and media personnel who highlight any alleged human rights violations. Moreover, the company was given the opportunity to inform Hector of any inaccuracies in the information given to him when he made enquiries in two emails to the firm. The company has not explored all avenues in resolving the problem faced by the workers amicably before resorting to this demand and threat of legal action; it should focus its attention on resolving these problems.

In our view, Asahi Kosei’s action is unreasonable, arbitrary and heavy handed; aimed at the suppression of free expression and workers’ complaints. The company also appears to be pushing its responsibility for the workers to a dubious unknown and unnamed party and, directly or indirectly, obstructing the right of workers to legally resolve their labour problems through the proper channels available to both workers and employers.

It would also be commendable for Asahi Kosei to immediately reinstate the two workers and engage in the dispute resolution process according to Malaysian labour laws, with Labour Department intervention as legally provided in this country.

Likewise, we urge all employers to engage in the dispute resolution process according to employment legislation and to adhere to all relevant labour and other legislation in Malaysia which apply to local as well as migrant workers in this country. Employers should recognise and respect the rights of all workers, their human rights and human dignity.

We reiterate that all workers, including migrant workers, are human beings with inherent rights and fundamental freedoms. They are not commodities to be imported, exploited and deported at the whims of employers or their recruitment and outsourcing agents.

16 February 2011

Endorsed by:

Aliran
MagickRiver
Centre for Policy Initiatives
Centre for Orang Asli Concerns
Parti Sosialis Malaysia
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
Civil Society Committee of Lim Lian Geok Cultural Development Centre
LLG Cultural Development Centre Bhd
Persatuan Pendidikan Sekolah-Sekolah Persendirian (Cina), Pulau Pinang
Borneo Resources Institute, Malaysia (Brimas)
Citizens International (Penang)
Asian Migrants Centre
Building and Woodworkers International (Switzerland)
Women Institute for Reseach Development and Advancement (WIRDA)
International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development
Writers Alliance for Media Independence (Wami)
Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)
Thai Committee for Refugees (TCR)
Human Rights Education Institute of Burma
Human Rights Working Group-Indonesia
International Movement for a Just World
Norwegian Burma Committee
Workers Assistance Center, Philippines
Semarak Cerlang Nusa – Consultancy, Research, Education for Social Transformation (SCN-CREST), Indonesia
Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), Indonesia
Judicial System Monitoring Programme (JSMP), Timor Leste
Union Network International-Malaysian Liaison Council (UNI-MLC)
Free Burma Coalition – Philippines (FBC-Phils)
Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), Philippines
KKSP Foundation, Indonesia
Health Equity Initiatives
Migrants Trade Union (MTU)
NGOs in Myanmar Web Portal
Myanmar Youth Knowledge Initiative
SOS (Save Ourselves), Penang
Penang Watch
MEO-Net
Forum for Democracy in Burma
Project Maje, Portland, Oregon, USA
MAP Foundation, Thailand
Burmese Relief Center, Japan
Migrante International, Philippines
Bar Council Malaysia
Koalisi Perempuan Indonesia Untuk Keadilan dan Demokrasi (Indonesian Women’s Coalition for Justice and Democracy)
Lee Siew Hwa, blogger
Consumers’ Association of Penang
Sahabat Alam (Friends of the Earth) Malaysia
Third World Network
Teras Pengupayaan Melayu
Think Centre, Singapore
Khmer Institute of Democracy
Publish What You Pay, Indonesia
Chin Democracy and Human Rights Network, South Korea
Solidaritas Perempuan-Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights, Indonesia
Yaung Chi Oo Workers Association (YCOWA)
Centre of Democracy and Human Rights Studies (Demos), Indonesia
Burma Partnership
Task Force on Asean and Burma
Solidaritas Indonesia untuk Burma (SIB)
Mario Art, Blogger, www.martoart.multiply.com
Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO)
Housing Rights Task Force Cambodia
Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), Singapore
The National Human Rights Society (Hakam)
Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti
Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR)
Pergerakan Indonesia
Human Rights Education Institute of Burma (HREIB)
Centre for Trade Unions and Human Rights, Philippines
Centre for Human Rights of Islamic University of Indonesia/Pusat Studi Hak Asasi Manusia Universitas Islam Indonesia (Pusham UII)
Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (Adhoc)
Burma Centre, Delhi
Myanmar Ethnic Rohingya Human Rights Organisation Malaysia (Merhrom)
MAUAH (Working Group for Asean Human Rights Mechanism, Singapore)
Tanjung Bunga Residents’ Association (TBRA)
People’s Forum on Burma, Japan
Burmese Rohingya Association in Japan (BRAJ)
Taman Sri Nibong Residents’ Association
Friends of Pakatan Rakyat UK

Some articles about migrant workers,,,(Star, 19/2/2011)

2011-02-18T23:00:00.000-08:00

Striking a Balance in Foreign Labour

By CECILIA KOK
cecilia_kok@thestar.com.my

Harbouring the hope of providing a better future for her family, Sutimah left her village in Surabaya, Indonesia 23 years ago and travelled almost 2,000 km by boat to Peninsular Malaysia in search of a better-paying job.

She started work as a housemaid, earning less than RM400 a month. But for Sutimah, that was a sufficient amount that could alleviate the poor living conditions of her family.

“I tried to send as much money home as possible each month so that my family could live more comfortably, and my children could have access to better education,” says the 45-year-old mother of four.

Nor Zahidi Alias says rapid economic development is the primary reason for many countries’ increasing dependence on foreign labour

Sutimah, who has just been granted permanent resident status in Malaysia, is now working as a cleaner with an agency that pays her a monthly salary of RM1,000. She still sends back a big portion of the money that she earns each month, as the financial burden of her family keeps growing, particularly since her husband became paralysed a few years ago and could no longer work as an odd-job labourer.

“I have never thought of going back to Indonesia to work. I couldn't, it's just too difficult to make ends meet and to provide for my family,” she says.

Sutimah's experience, though not representative of all, speaks of a typical factor that drives people to leave their homelands and work in another country. Invariably the migrants will cite poor living conditions and a lack of opportunity for upward social and economic mobility as the main reason in their quest for greener pastures.

Promised land?

For south and southeast Asian economies, especially those that are lagging behind Malaysia, many migrant workers perceive the latter as a land flowing with milk and honey.

Official data show that Malaysia attracts a huge number of migrant workers into the country. According to official record, the number quadrupled from less than 500,000 in 1999 to more than two million, representing about 17% of the country's workforce in 2008.

It is believed that the number has since reduced to less than two million over the last two years as many migrant workers were sent home at the height of the global financial crisis in 2009. As at the end of February 2010, total registered foreign workers stood at 1.8 million, down from 1.9 million at the end of December 2009.

What's more intriguing is the fact that the actual number of migrant workers living in Malaysia could be more than double of what the official data suggest. It is believed many of these migrant workers have entered, or re-entered the country illegally.

While Malaysia cannot claim that it offers the lucrative benefits that many first-world nations have, its relatively better economic prospects and political stability have been the major pull factors.

So, is that a boon or a bane to the Malaysians economy? According to experts, it can be both ways.

“It goes without saying that foreign workers have indeed contributed to the growth of our economy, especially in sectors where we have an acute shortage of workers such as construction,” says the Malaysian Trade Union Congress deputy president Mohd Jafar Abdul Majid.

“But our economy is swamped with foreign workers who are unskilled or have low skill sets that could not contribute meaningfully to Malaysia's aspiration of becoming a high-income economy; and I think we have been too dependent on this group of foreign workers for far too long,” he adds. This is based on the significant increase in the number of unskilled or low-skill migrant workers in the country over the past two decades.

Filling the gap

In the Economic Report 2010/2011 compiled by the Finance Ministry, it was stated that of the 1.8 million registered migrant workers in Malaysia, 38.2% were employed in the manufacturing sector, 16% in the construction and 14.2% in the plantation sectors.

Indonesia accounted for the highest number of registered foreign workers in Malaysia at 50.9% . This was attributable to their country's proximity to Malaysia and its cultural and language similarities with Malaysia.

Bangladesh was second highest, accounting for 17% of the total foreign workers in Malaysia, followed by Nepal at 9.7%, Myanmar, 7.8%, India, 6.3% and Vietnam, 4.2%.

“The high dependency on foreign labour is not a characteristic unique to Malaysia,” says Malaysian Rating Corp Bhd chief economist Nor Zahidi Alias.

He says countries that have been experiencing high growth rates such as Singapore and the Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are also experiencing the same phenomenon of having to rely on foreign labour in many sectors in their economies.

“Rapid economic development is the primary reason for the countries' increasing dependence on foreign labour,” Zahidi explains.

In general, the rising standard of living and educational levels that usually come in tandem with economic development will to lead to an aversion to the 3D (dirty, demeaning and dangerous) sectors by the local population.

The void in these sectors has to be filled by unskilled migrant workers and Malaysia is not spared.

Robust economic growth in the past two decades has led to higher standard of living and improved the literacy rate among the people.

In addition, the sustained boom in economic activities has also led to substantial job creation as employment expanded faster than the labour force.

A tight labour supply situation further fuelled the growing demand for foreign labour, especially in the manufacturing and construction sectors.

Flawed strategy?

Since the 1980s, Malaysia's economy has been driven largely by the export-oriented manufacturing sectors, especially the electrical and electronic segments. The Government, perceiving migrant workers as a cheap source of labour that could enhance the country's export competitiveness had been encouraging the deployment of foreign labour in the 1990s.

As a result, local manufacturers had been able to enjoy a steady supply of cheap labour for the past two decades, and Malaysia has been able to maintain its competitiveness.

Migrant workers have been used as the foundation of the country's rapid-growth strategy. The presence of migrant workers in the country has been more than just filling the gap in the 3D sectors.

But economists are questioning if the huge influx of foreign labour is indeed the right move.

Some economists say it has been a flawed strategy.

Professor Datuk Dr Mohamed Ariff of the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research says the opening of the floodgates for cheap foreign labour in the past is a major mistake that has put Malaysia in the middle-income trap.

“It was a short-sighted growth strategy that attempted to maintain the country's competitiveness based on a low-wage system,” he explains, adding that he firmly believes that if Malaysia had not allowed the massive influx, local manufacturers would have been forced to innovate, automate to boost productivity to maintain their competitiveness so that they could move up the value chain.

Economists concede that the continuous dependence on cheap foreign labour would be a drag to the country's economy, as it would not encourage local corporations to mechanise - the initiatives of which are necessary to push the economy into a high-income level as defined by World Bank.

In addition, the huge number of unskilled or low-skilled foreign workers in the country has also raised concerns of security and incidences of highly contagious diseases in the country.

They are also seen to be putting additional strain on the Government's fiscal position as foreign workers could also have access to subsidised facilities including fuel and medical care.

“Over-reliance on foreign workers can have detrimental consequences, and that is why the Government is looking at ways to reduce dependence on them. The nation's prevailing dependence on low-skilled foreign workers cannot be done away with overnight, as a sudden repatriation of them can have serious repercussions on the economy, especially in sectors like manufacturing, construction and plantation,” he explains.

“Production activities will stall as quick replacements are not readily available. This will inevitably lead to a loss of competitiveness, closures or stagnations of businesses,” Zahidi says, adding that the distinctive roles of foreign labours in the 3D sectors cannot be underestimated.

To lift Malaysia to a higher developmental plane, economists say more incentives should be introduced to spur businesses to become less labour-intensive.

“For certain, it is only when businesses become accustomed to capital-intensive modes of production can their reliance on low-skilled foreign labour be reduced,” Zahidi says.

Skilled foreign labour

Not all foreign workers in Malaysia are unskilled or have low skill sets. A small number of them are highly skilled professionals who play an invaluable role in enhancing the country's productivity and competitiveness.

Generally termed as expatriates, these professionals are considered to be an asset to the country, as they bring with them the knowledge and skills that could enrich the local labour force.

“Inflows of skilled foreign labour should not be discouraged. As demonstrated by other countries such as Singapore and some of the Gulf states where highly skilled foreign labour are critical in the spurring a country's development.

There is certainly a positive role that certain classes of foreign workers can play in any economy,” Zahidi says.

According to Economic Report 2010/2011, as at the end of July last year, the number of expatriates in Malaysia stood at 31,371, accounting for less than 2% of the migrant workers in the country.

They were mostly employed in the services (64.8%) and the manufacturing (22.2%) sectors, and they came mostly from India (17.8%), China (10.2%) and Japan (7%).

Under the 10th Malaysia Plan, the Government planned to attract highly-skilled expatriates to promote a knowledge and innovation-based economy, especially in the technical and professional services. Part of this effort is reflected in Talent Corporation Malaysia Bhd, which aims to attract, motivate and retain high-skilled human capital in the country.

Finding the right balance

The Government's effort in reducing the country's dependency on low-skilled foreign workers has been ongoing, as evidenced in the gradual reduction in the number of registered foreign workers over the last two years. Its target is to reduce the number of foreign workers to 1.5 million by 2015.

But this would be a challenging task. “Economic transition has not been easy; neither has the country's policy to reduce its heavy reliance on low-skilled imported labour because the technology base of Malaysia is still relatively low,” says independent consultant Dr Vijayakumari Kanapathy (formerly a senior analyst with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies).

“So, given the structure of Malaysia's economy, the reliance on imported labour in the immediate future is likely to continue,” she adds.

Mohd Jafar concurs, saying: “To be fair, all stakeholders play a role in reducing the country's reliance on migrant workers. Employers need to move away from their dependence on cheap foreign labour and go up the value chain, while policymakers need to implement better regulation and improve on the enforcement part, especially in preventing the illegal immigrants from entering the country.”

Malaysia needs to shift its focus from importing cheap labour to managing labour flow that can maximise growth and facilitate its structural adjustment towards a higher income economy,

This will also minimise the negative social impact brought about by these foreign nationals. But striking a balance between short and long-term needs of the economy will prove to be a complex challenge.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/2/19/business/8094068&sec=business

Remittance Business Picks Up Steam

By DALJIT DHESI

daljit@thestar.com.my

THE remittance business is enjoying good growth and will march on following the inflow of foreign workers into the country amid the Government's various projects to propel the local economy.

Industry observers feel the Government's open-door policy of bringing in such workers, unskilled and skilled ones, to boost certain sectors of the Malaysian economy will see the remittance business gaining prominence as a revenue generator for remittance service providers (RSPs) despite the competition in this business.

Remittance growth

According to the Malaysian Immigration Department 2009, the migrant workers population in Malaysia totalled 1.92 million of which 80% were from Indonesia, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Currently, there are 62 RSPs in Malaysia of which 22 are commercial banks, two are national saving banks and 38 are non-bank RSPs, among others like Western Union and MoneyGram. The emergence of non-bank RSPs less than a decade ago has made the remittance business more competitive.

RAM’s Dr Yeah Kim Leng says the remittance of migrant funds is expected to rise further by 10%-15% this year.

RAM Holdings Bhd chief economist Dr Yeah Kim Leng says that with the continuous rise in the intake of unskilled foreign workers in response to the needs of the expanding plantation and services sectors, the remittance of migrant funds is expected to rise further by 10%-15% this year.

The stronger remittance, he adds, is also underpinned by the expected rise in the number of skilled expatriates and Malaysian returnees attracted to the country's Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) and accompanying investment activities.

“Remittance flows are the second largest source of external funding for developing countries behind foreign direct investment. A rough gauge of the size of banking remittance business in Malaysia can be gleaned from the country's balance of payment statistics.

“Based on the total inward and outward current transfers and compensation of employees, the remittance business exhibits a steadily rising trend. Over the 2005-2009 period, the total value of inward and outward flows averaged RM30bil annually, a 60% rise over the average for the preceding five-year period, he says.

The estimated total remittances rose by 22% to RM36.5bil in 2009 and recorded a further 12% increase in the first three quarters of 2010.

On the types of transactions performed by migrant workers, Maybank's deputy president and head of community financial services Lim Hong Tat says basically there are two types. The first involves where the fund is credited into a bank account of a beneficiary in the receiving country, and the second one is where the fund is collected in cash over the counter at the overseas appointed agent.

Most of the RSPs, Lim says, are using the Swift system or batch file processing for account crediting remittance service and usually the funds can be received within two to three working days.

The existence of non-bank RSPs like Western Union and MoneyGram in Malaysia has moved the remittance business into a new and higher level of service where the customer may opt for instant cash collection over the counter.

Apart from partnering with MoneyGram, one of the world's largest remittance service provider, it has also launched a new remittance platform known as Maybank Money Express (MME) in September 2010 which is capable of offering both account crediting and instant cash collection service.

MME is the first such service offered by a Malaysian bank that also offers instant cash collection over the counter.

Lim says MME leverages on Maybank's regional presence to provide remittance touch points in seven countries like Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. It will expand to India and the Middle East by year-end, he adds.

Judging from the number of foreign workers in Malaysia and RSPs in the country, the remittance business is competitive and a profitable one.

Profitable though competitive

Yeah feel the remittance business is a profitable one for banks as margins from transaction charges and exchange rate conversion provides a lucrative revenue line and an incentive for banks to tap the growing remittance and cross-border banking business services.

As banks' interest margins come under pressure this year, remittance services will become an even more important segment of the banks' non-interest income stream, he notes.

Banks which have invested heavily in technology and regional network infrastructure are well positioned to service the banking needs of the ever growing pool of internationally and regionally mobile skilled and unskilled labour, Yeah adds.

United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd head of transaction banking division Andre Lee agrees. He says migrant workers' remittance business is a profitable business for banks, especially in Malaysia which is dependent on migrant workers for certain industries.

Those working in Malaysia usually commit a certain portion of their wages to support their family back home and this type of remittance happens monthly for most migrant workers during their payroll week, he notes.

Western Union’s Ratheesh Kumar says the remittance market is growing and has strong potential.

For UOB Malaysia, Lee says the bank has seen an upward trend of remittance from a transaction record of 24,000 in 2008 to 95,000 in 2009. On a month-to-month comparison, January 2011 versus January 2010, the bank's remittance figure rose by 25%.

Overall, Lee says the remittance business of migrant workers contribute about 9% of the bank's total remittance business revenue and hope to drive this business further.

Ratheesh Kumar, who is Western Union's regional vice-president for South Asia & South East Asia, says the remittance market is growing and has strong potential.

“While the Western Union service offers our agents including banks an additional fee based income, more importantly it also helps bring in customer footfalls which can be easily translated into incremental business for the bank's portfolio of products. In short, a win-win situation for both the bank and Western Union,'' he explains.

In 2010, Western Union completed 214 million consumer-to-consumer transactions worldwide, moving US$76bil of principal between consumers, and 405 million business payment.

As for 2011, Ratheesh says given the dynamic nature of the remittance industry, it would be too early to forecast the growth of the market for the year.

The company's global consumer to consumer business (migrant remittances) accounts for around 84% of Western Union's total global revenues of US$5.2bil as of last year.

Lim says the presence of a large number of about 1,800 touch points nationwide where remittance services are provided is an indication of the profitability of this business although the high number of RSPs does affect margins for the remittance business.

Maybank is targeting the migrant workers remittance business to increase 10% in 2011 from last year with the introduction of its MME service. Without churning numbers, he says Maybank's remittance business is sizeable and migrant worker remittance business consist a reasonable portion of it.

The need for formal channels

Moving forward, although the remittance business is poised for strong growth in view of the higher demand for foreign workers amid more projects taking shape to steer the economy, there is a need to make the service more efficient.

Yeah says that besides upgrading facilities for funds remittance, the expansion of branch networks of banks or tie-ups with foreign banks is needed to cater to the large number of workers looking for formal banking channels to remit funds.

In turn, this will help to curb the large illicit flows transfers through informal and illegal channels as highlighted in a recent international report, he notes.

Lim says that based on a study from World Bank Conference 2007 in Bali, about 90% of remittance outflows from Malaysia to Indonesia occur through informal channels.

The lack of requisite identification/status documents required to open bank accounts or interact with formal RSPs has been the main reason that some migrant workers opt for Hawala or Hundi (informal channels), he notes.

Hawala is an informal value transfer system based on the performance and honour of a huge network of money brokers, who are primarily located in the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa and South Asia.

The challenge for commercial banks is to create greater awareness among those who use informal channels to change to an efficient, much safer and reliable remittance services offered via formal channels.

By leveraging on Maybank's presence in the region, Lim says this will provide greater confidence to migrant workers who are familiar with or who may have accounts with Maybank branches or partner banks in their respective countries.

Another approach, he adds, is by offering reward campaigns to attract new customers to use the service.

“Visits to areas with large migrant population, businesses employing migrant workers and the use of vernacular language are some of the campaigns to publicise the service,'' he says.

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/2/19/business/8077566&sec=business

Locals Put Off by ‘Dirty, Demeaning and Dangerous’ Low-end Jobs

By EUGENE MAHALINGAM
eugenicz@thestar.com.my

EVER walked into a grocery store or a food stall and got greeted by a foreign worker, and then only to be met by a blank stare when you requested for something?

Language barrier is just one of the many gripes of consumers against businesses, especially small establishments, that employ foreign workers.

For these small businesses, hiring foreign labour is not a question of choice. According to many employers in this segment, locals are simply not interested in such low-end jobs.

Shamsuddin Bardan ... ‘The major reason many SMEs hire foreign workers is that they have no choice.’

Malaysian Indian Restaurant Owners Association president Datuk R. Ramalingam Pillai calls this segment of employment the “3D” category.

“Locals consider it dirty, demeaning and dangerous,” he says in jest.

Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) executive director Shamsuddin Bardan says many local talents just aren't interested to work in small establishments, namely SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises).

“The major reason many SMEs hire foreign workers is that they have no choice. Being small, they can't attract locals to work for them.

“Locals prefer to work in big organisations because they are career-driven. Foreign workers, especially within the low-income bracket and those that work for small businesses are not. They work here for a few years and return to their home country.”

He adds that previously, most SMEs were family-run businesses but today, the newer generation is not interested in following the footsteps of their forefathers as they prefer to seek opportunities elsewhere.

The Malaysian Indian Hairdressing Saloon Owners Association president K. Kaviarasan says that being a barber, especially of the “old school” kind, is considered “not glamorous” by locals.

“We have to hire foreign workers because nobody (locals) wants the job. I myself am a third-generation barber but my children are not interested in carrying on the legacy,” he tells StarBizWeek.

Kaviarasan says many Malaysians are put off by the long working hours.

“Being a barber means having to work from 9am to 9pm and most Malaysians don't like working long hours. They would rather be the boss of the business and have more flexible working hours.”

Kaviarasan believes that the salary (of barbers) is not the main factor why Malaysians are put off with this line of work.

“The salary of a barber is not great but it's alright. The pay ranges from RM1,300 to RM1,500, depending on how long they've been working.”

Shamsuddin says it is a misconception that foreign workers are paid lower salaries than locals within the same job scope.

“The public perception that foreign labour is cheap is untrue. For employers to hire foreign labour, they must go through an agent and the agency's fee is high. It ranges between RM4,000 and RM5,000 per worker, depending on the situation.

“For those that require three or four foreign workers, the cost is even higher.”

Shamsuddin adds that employers are required by law to pay their foreign worker the same salary as they would a local employee. He says a foreign worker could file a complaint with the labour department if they are underpaid.

Datuk Ramalingam Pillai ... ‘Locals consider it dirty, demeaning and dangerous.’

SMI Association of Malaysia national president Chua Tiam Wee says SMEs in the country are facing a shortage of local employees for these low-end jobs.

“We can't find locals to man a kitchen in a small restaurant, a factory or a retail shop because they don't like the heat or prefer to work in an air-conditioned environment.

Chua adds that SMEs prefer to hire foreign workers because of the high level of absenteeism among locals.

“Locals take leave during holidays or festive seasons and may take medical leave for prolonged periods, but this may not be the case for foreign employees.

“Foreign workers are also willing to work overtime just to earn extra money,” he says.

Sunildeep Singh, who owns and runs the Kedai Serba Aneka Simpang Tiga grocery store in Batu Caves, Selayang, says it is easier to attract foreign labour to work at a sundry shop.

“I also believe that they are more hardworking than locals. Foreign workers are willing to work all day, even on weekends and public holidays.”

“I'm sure that our own locals can do an even better job, but they expect high pay for very little work.”

Sunil runs the shop with his wife and is assisted by a single foreign worker from India.

He says hiring foreign talent is the “norm” these days.

“Foreign talents are not difficult to get. They're abundant. You can spot them in every corner.”

Speaking from experience, Sunil says the only negative issue about hiring a foreign workers is that they may not be very trustworthy, especially with money.

“It's hard to trust them with your cash. You need to keep your eyes on them at all times,” he says, adding that his former (foreign) employee was caught stealing red-handed.

“However, my new worker seems trustworthy,” he adds.

Communication barrier

Sunildeep Singh believes foreign workers are more hardworking than locals.

One of the most common problems with hiring foreign workers is that they cannot communicate in either Bahasa Melayu or English. Shamsuddin says this can cause frustration to customers and deter them from frequenting the premises in future.

“In a lot of instances, the foreign worker is left on their own to man the premises while the proprietor is not around. Locals will end up leaving when they find that the person at the store can't communicate well with them.”

Muslim Wholesalers and Retailers Association executive secretary Kamal Musthaffa believes that language issues will not be a problem if the foreign worker does not deal with the customer directly.

“If they are not working at the front end, then it's not an issue. Foreign workers (that have problem communicating) should be designated at the back of the shop where they don't deal with the customers. They could work on just arranging or packaging of the goods.”

Shamsuddin believes that in the worst-case scenario, the country's brand-image can be affected.

“When tourists come to Malaysia, they are served by foreign workers and this would not look good for the image of our country. We need to look critically into these kinds of businesses. It should be manned by our own people and reflect our culture.”

Kaviarasan concurs that language is a common problem when hiring foreign workers, noting that it takes between one year and two years for them to be able to start conversing with locals properly.

“But they can be trained. It's not an issue.”

Shamsuddin says small businesses should endeavour to train their foreign workers and ultimately, improve their brand-image.

“There are a lot of small businesses that are operating outside the law. It is doubtful whether some of them even have proper insurance or subscribe to Socso.

“By upgrading themselves and improving their brand-image, there is no reason why they cannot hire locals.”

Shamsuddin says the local authority can also step in and improve the working conditions of small establishments that employed foreign workers.

“Many of the businesses in Petaling Street or Chow Kit are operated by foreigners. If we could may be have a building to house these businesses, it would provide a more appropriate avenue to work.

“If this happened, they (the businesses) won't face the hassle of having to push their carts and facing storage problems or being harassed by the authorities.”

Shamsuddin says the Government is trying to reduce the number of foreign workers coming into the country and has proposed to increase the levy on foreigner workers by 400% by 2015.

“But we (MEF) have objected to this. We believe not all the employers should be penalised by the levy.

“Some businesses hire foreigners as a matter of choice and intentionally don't hire locals, while others do it out of necessity (they have no choice but to hire foreigners).”

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/2/19/business/8070096&sec=business

Open Letter from the Asian Human Rights Commission to the Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd.

2011-02-17T22:13:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 18, 2011
AHRC-OLT-002-2011

An Open Letter from the Asian Human Rights Commission to the Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Company

Mr. Takeshi Nishitsuji -- President
Asahi Kosei (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Lot 3377, Jalan Perusahaan Utama,
Taman Industri Selesa Jaya,
43300 Balakong, Selangor Darul Ehsan
MALAYSIA
Tel: +60 3 89614360
Fax: +60 3 89614354
Email: asahi@po.jaring.my

Dear Mr. Nishitsuji,

MALAYSIA: Protest against a threat of litigation against human rights lawyer, public interest advocate and blogger Mr. Charles Hector Fernandez

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to draw your attention regarding the instructions to T.S. Teoh & Partners, your legal representative, on the possibility of taking legal action for libel against Mr. Charles Hector Fernandez, a blogger and lawyer, regarding the posts in his blog you claim to be libellous.

In the demand letter dated February 11, 2011, but which was served on Mr. Fernandez on February 14, you claimed that the content of his post in his blog charleshector.blogspot.com, on February 8, titled ' Hopefully ASAHI KOSEI (M) SDN. BHD wont terminate/deport workers who claim rights'; and on February 9, titled ' URGENT:- Stop ASAHI KOSEI (M) SDN. BHD from sending Thiha Soe (PP No: A 458011) back to Burma, were "very serious libel on our clients and have caused them much distress and embarrassment".

Your Company also demanded a payment of RM10,000,000.00 (USD3,279,307) within seven days from him to 'vindicate our clients reputation', to "remove the said postings and a full written and unequivocal public retraction and written apology in terms to be approved by us and an undertaking not to repeat these allegations".

As of today, the post that is subject of your complaint can still be accessed online. We understand that from the very beginning of this issue, Mr. Fernandez had been trying to draw your attention to the plight of workers who are complaining. Mr. Fernandez acted on legitimate complaints, like any other compassionate individuals would do, to hear and comment on the grievances of victims like them. On the same day the articles were posted, Mr. Fernandez sent emails to your Company asking for you to intervene. However, he has not received any response.

While we understand that legally your Company has the right to take legal action for the protection of your interests we urge you to reconsider this path. Your Company, who has been doing business and providing employment in Malaysia, would rather have more to gain and more contributions should you withdraw the legal action on Mr. Fernandez for the following reasons:

Narrating facts, evidence vs. narrating with malice
The content of Mr. Fernandez posts were purely narration of facts based on the information given to him by the Burmese migrant workers. He acted on behalf of the workers who are foreigners in Malaysian soil to assist them in obtaining remedies. In his posts, he asked questions and did not make declarations, wrote the term 'allegedly' and expressed human emotions of hope that your Company would respond to the workers' plight.

As you are aware, the migrant workers are from Burma. Most of them could not speak the language that is spoken in Malaysia; thus, if these workers could not even speak the language, we certainly could not expect them to know all the legal and complaint mechanisms therein, if there is anything that we could call effective in a real sense that is available in Malaysia.

The role on which Mr. Fernandez took on this case is very important. Where the state mechanisms are not known to victims, he has helped to inform the workers how to deal with it; and where information about complaints of violations are mostly unreported, he blogs on them for other people to intervene on behalf of the workers. We would not have known the case of these workers had it not been from his blog posts.

The complaint of the Burmese workers was only made possible to be put on record, particularly with the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM), because there are persons who assist in documenting their case. There was someone who could tell the workers the complaint mechanism available in a country where they are foreigners and in a place where they are most vulnerable from exploitation and abuse. In most cases, despite the endemic cases of violations on migrant workers, they prefer not to complain, to keep quiet and to just forget about what had happened to them for practical reasons.

As you are aware, the workers, which you argue are the responsibility of the employment agencies from where you get their service, are from Burma. They came to Malaysia and agreed to terms, often out rightly violating minimum protection to migrant workers, because they needed the job. They needed money to support their families living in Burma, a country where most of their people would prefer leaving than staying. Burma is one of the many countries where employment opportunities could not be found and the people suffer from its own government who do not protect them.

Workers lack protection: inside and outside their country
As you are aware, if citizens coming from developed countries are in trouble in another country, they have their mechanism where their Embassies and Consulates would contact and communicate with their citizens in trouble. They invest human resources, time, money and expertise to protect and to represent the interest of their own citizens regardless of whether they are at home or on foreign soil. Their mechanism of protection and assistance extends beyond the borders of their own country.

But the Burmese migrant workers whom Mr. Fernandez is assisting do not have this protection and assistance mechanism from their own government. A government who could not protect their own citizens in their own soil could not be expected to protect their citizens who are in trouble in foreign countries. These workers were not provided with assistance on their complaints or asked what help they needed, for example legal assistance on labour and immigration proceedings; as should be done by governments.

The wrongful deportation, as Mr. Fernandez had it described in his blog, of the Burmese migrant workers was a statement of fact and reflects the realities of the extreme difficulties these workers would have to deal with their government. How possible it is to deport a person back to his country when it is done in a procedure that was questionable? When a person in foreign countries had nothing but himself anything can be done on him. He has no protection at all. The Burmese workers, too, are themselves aware and know full well that they can never expect their own government to help them remedy their plight.

Implications of the legal action
We understand that any aggrieved party, like your Company, has the legal right to pursue complaints should they feel that their rights are violated. The AHRC is a strong advocate of effective complaints mechanism in Asian countries, particularly helping the victims of human rights violations. Your company has the right to take legal action in the same manner the victims of human rights violations do against officers of the State.

However, there is an enormous difference between upholding the person's or the entities lawful right to complain for its self preservation as against the right to complain to have the basic recognition of a fundamental right. The latter has far tremendous and deep consequences, not only on the persons or entities, but it affects the entire people in the society within their own country once they are suppressed. Needless to say, the reason why the violations of human rights, in its unspeakable terms, goes largely unreported and is not exposed to the public in Malaysia is because of the lack of recognition by their own society and their government to the fundamental principle of human rights: Freedom of Expression.

In Malaysia, laws have been used as a tool to prosecute persons who purely narrate facts, to prosecute and impose rigorous imprisonment on persons who only intend to initiate discourse on the conditions they face in their own country. They are charged, prosecuted and punished for expressing their thoughts and opinions, not because what they say was wrong or malicious but to suppress them from exposing the realities and the human conditions in their own country. In most countries, including Malaysia and Singapore, this type of legal action attacks not only the individual, but any sort of discourse on human rights and democracy.

Thus, we urged your Company not to be part of this concerted effort to suppress the struggle of the Malaysian people for recognition of the principles of Free Speech and Expression in Malaysia. We urged your Company to help them to have this fundamental right recognized not only in books and laws in their own society. By pursuing the legal action on Mr. Fernandez you are already helping in abusing a system of justice.

We urged your Company to uphold the principles of Corporate Responsibility but not abusing the legal process. In this way you can contribute to social progress in countries where you are allowed to do business to protect and uphold the interest of the people.

Yours sincerely,

Wong Kai Shing
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

---------

You can also read and respond to this Appeal:
MALAYSIA: A human rights lawyer and public interest advocate faces threats of legal action for blogging about a company allegedly violating rights of migrant workers
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-033-2011

# # #

International Human Rights Day 2010 - Download our pre-print PDF version of the annual reports here.

-----------------------------

Asian Human Rights Commission
#701A Westley Square,
48 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon,
Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339
Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367

URL: humanrights.asia
twitter/youtube/facebook: humanrightsasia

$3.2m lawsuit for defending Burmese migrants (DVB, 16/2/2011)

2011-02-17T18:51:00.001-08:00

Democratic Voice of Burma, 16/2/2011, $3.2m lawsuit for defending Burmese migrants

Lawyer Charles Hector, who is facing a $3.2 million lawsuit (WH4C)
By JOSEPH ALLCHIN
Published: 16 February 2011

A Malaysia-based Japanese multinational is lining up a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against a lawyer who is defending a group of Burmese workers threatened with deportation.

Electrical components’ company Asahi Kosei has denied allegations lodged by lawyer Charles Hector that it attempted to deport two workers back to Burma. The two men are among 31 who complained that their employers at the company had broken contractual obligations, including a refusal to pay the agreed salary.

Hector, who is defending the 31, went public with the allegations after receiving no response to a letter sent to Asahi Kosehi on behalf of the workers. He mustered the support of some 77 organisations in multiple countries who composed a media statement on the 11 February, as well as writing a post on his blog. It was after this that Asahi Kosei responded with their MYR10 million ($US3.27 million) legal threat.

“The attempt to go against human rights defenders personally is an attempt to suppress the public interest function that human rights activists play in highlighting violations of human rights visited on marginalised people by the bigger, more powerful employer companies,” said Pranom Somwong of the Workers Hub for Change (WH4C).

According to Malaysian government statistics, there are close to 100,000 registered Burmese workers in the country, comprising some five percent of the total registered workers. Rights group say however that hundreds of thousands additional migrants from Burma are unregistered. Given the sketchy legal status of many, violations of labour rights are believed to be common.

The situation between the 31 Burmese and their employers turned nasty on 7 February, a week after they filed their complaints, when a mob escorted by police arrived at their hostel in the Balakong township of Selangor, Malaysia, and threatened them. The mob then cut the electrics and walked off with household appliances, such as the hostel’s television and cooking utensils.

Mirroring a recent incident in Johor in Malaysia, the police allegedly nabbed two of the workers’ leaders, Thiha Soe and Aung San. They believed they were being taken to Kuala Lumpur International Airport, WH4C says, but managed to escape.

The following day the workers submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) and were preparing a complaint for the labour ministry when on 9 February they were given a new contract to sign. Accompanying the contract however was an ultimatum that if they refused to sign, they would be deported to Burma immediately.

Twenty-nine of the workers signed under pressure but Thiha Soe and Aung San refused. They were then separated and handed over to the recruitment agents who took them to unknown locations, possibly with a view to sending them back to Burma.

Asahi Kosei makes parts for a number of international brands, such as JVC, Seiko, Hitachi, Mitsubiushi, Philips and Sharp. It has denied all allegations, and told Hector that it had made all payments to the recruitment agents, thereby passing the blame onto them. But a subsequent letter sent by the veteran lawyer to the company was ignored, prompting him to go public with the case.

“The fact of the matter is that workers in a company should be the responsibility of the said company, and they cannot just avoid responsibility by saying that these are not their own workers but workers of some other company,” said Pranom.