A Pradigm Shift for Malaysia's Foreign Worker Policy Possible?

Labour is another factor of production, and any effort to hamper this may lead to unproductive and unfertile economic growth. In Malaysia, labour force make up, at least 45% of the total population and no less than 12 million labour force employed in various sectors. Malaysia is one of the largest hosting countries for foreign workers (FWs) in the region, and their existence in the Malaysian labour market is crucial to boost the Malaysian economy towards developed status by 2020.  

The question arises, does Malaysia’s policy and its implementation effective enough to regulate FWs as to achieve its strategic aims? Or, are FWs unproductive and finally do not fulfill labour’s demands but affect proportionately in the social ill, political tension and crime rates? Policy direction that treats FWs as immigrant population instead of labour, regulate their movement instead of freedom, would not be able to benefit from their potential.  

What’s wrong with Malaysia’s Foreign Worker Policy?

Now, one should argue, what’s wrong with Malaysia’s foreign worker policy? Malaysia has an unbounded and short-term in nature foreign worker policy, with no specific timeframe for its implementation, without number of foreign workers determined for specific year and sector, and finally discourages an effective policy evaluation. Malaysia has double objectives in order to achieve its short-term policy. On the one hand, Malaysia attempts to encourage legal employment among foreign workers and on the other hand, to combat the influx of irregular migrants.

After twenty-year of implementation, traced back at least since 1992, what has been achieved? While the number of legal foreign workers increased from 532,723 (in year 1993) to 1,573,061 (2011), the number of irregular migrants also enlarged to almost 2 million (estimate). This short-term strategy tends to be counterproductive by producing more irregular immigrants than the legal workers. Note that FWs are heterogeneous social class in which their regular status could be ‘irregularized’ deliberately or unintentionally, in multiple ways. Even worse, measures to regulate FWs tend to be detrimental towards their fundamental rights and sparked off critiques by certain quarters. The use of outsourcing companies, higher fees for recruitment, selective and delayed implementation of minimum wages, rotational recruitment system (just to mention a few) may also position FWs at risk of various forms of exploitation as well as economic and social deprivations.

Is Morally Sound and Rights-Based FW’s Policy Possible?

With its limited success, let alone critiques to it - does expectation to benefit from the existing foreign labour force from at least 14 hosting countries still feasible for Malaysia? Or, does Malaysia end up regulating their movement, hosting them in 17 immigration detention centres and undertaking more and more amnesty and repatriation programs that cost millions of tax payers money? It is the right time for Malaysia to review its current FW policy and stepping up to another level of perspective in line with good governance and practices of global migration as well as to adopt existing international instruments set up by international community.

Recommendation forwarded by NGOs and international organizations have been concentrated around the need for Malaysia to ratify a number of treaties and conventions. They are, amongst other,  the UN Convention of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families; ILO Conventions including Convention 29 (Forced Labour), 87 (Freedom of Association), 98 (Collective Bargaining), 100 (Equal Remuneration) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

By ratifying such instruments and followed by necessary harmonization into the national legal and institutional settings, Malaysia would not just gain the potential of FWs but  the ability to claim for a moral victory in concomitant with its objectives to be a moderate, progressive and developed nation.

Time for a paradigm shift

Malaysia should change its policy from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’. Policy that acts on an ad-hoc basis and responsive on case-by-case basis should be reviewed. The country should have a courageous to lead the region in offering and providing a development-centric and ‘immigrant-based’ (not just immigration) FW’s policy that upholds their basic rights, providing sensible returns and social security as well as spiritual needs. Thereafter, the country would be able to benefit the true potential of the FWs.

Heading to it needs proper attention to a number of gaps in the currently implemented FW’s policy. They are, among the few, as following;

• To allow FWs to bring their family and relatives and regularize their marriage while working in Malaysia. This point is important as to prevent statelessness and status’ irregularity due to illegal marriage.
• To expedite the implementation of minimum wage for the FWs, for all sectors without any irrelevant exclusion.
• To review (abolish, if needed) the strategy of ‘outsourcing’ of FWs and discover more on the government-to-government strategy in the process of recruitment and placement of FWs.

-end-

Andika - IKMAS, UKM, 2013