Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Malaysia (Ratification: 1957)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - Malaysia (Ratification: 2022)



The Government provided the following written information.

The Anti-Trafficking Act 2007 was amended in 2010. The Act came into force on 15 November 2010. It is now known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007. The amendment was made so as to strengthen the regulatory framework to deal more effectively with the issues of human trafficking and smuggling of migrants in Malaysia. Interpretation of trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants in accordance with the Act is as follows: “Trafficking in persons” is defined as all actions involved in acquiring or maintaining the labour or services of a person through coercion, for the purpose of exploitation. The profit in trafficking comes not from the movement of persons but from the sale of a trafficked person’s services or labour in the country of destination. “Smuggling of migrants” means arranging, facilitating or organizing, directly or indirectly, a person’s unlawful entry into or unlawful exit from any country of which the person is not a citizen or permanent resident. Virtually every country in the world is affected by this crime, whether as an origin, transit or destination country for smuggled migrants by profit-seeking criminals.

The amended Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 extends its coverage to the following: Section 15(a), to provide for a new offence. This amendment seeks to provide that a person who brings in transit a trafficked person through Malaysia by land, sea or air, or otherwise arranges or facilitates such act commits an offence. Section 17(a), to provide that the prosecution need not prove the movement or conveyance of the trafficked person to prove that the offence of trafficking in persons had occurred. The prosecution needs only to prove that the trafficked person was subject to exploitation. Part III(a). This new Part III(a) contains ten new sections, namely sections 26(a) to 26(j). The new Part III(a) addresses concerns that have arisen about the smuggling of migrants as a criminal activity distinct from legal or illegal activity on the part of the migrants themselves. The sections specifically criminalize the exploitation of migrants and the generation of illicit profits from the procurement of illegal entry or illegal residence of migrants. Section 41(a), to clarify that a smuggled migrant is only entitled to be protected under that Part if he was a trafficked person. Section 61(a), to provide for the admissibility of a deposition made by a trafficked person or a smuggled migrant who cannot be found during a proceeding in court. The deposition must have been made upon an oath before a session’s court judge or a magistrate if in Malaysia or a consular officer or a judicial officer if outside Malaysia.

The Council for Anti-Trafficking in Persons (MAPO) was established under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007. As far as the amended Act is concerned, MAPO is now known as the Council for Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants. The Council for Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants is headed by the Ministry of Home Affairs Secretary-General. Five taskforces were established to support the council’s function. MAPO’s objective is to make Malaysia internationally accredited as being free of illegal activities in connection with human trafficking and smuggling of migrants. Hence, MAPO’s main function is to prevent and eradicate human trafficking and migrant smuggling crimes through comprehensive enforcement of the Act. MAPO’s other roles are as follows: Formulate and oversee the implementation of a national action plan on the prevention and suppression of trafficking in persons including the support and protection of trafficked persons. Make recommendations to the minister on all aspects of prevention and suppression of trafficking in persons. Monitor the immigration and emigration patterns in Malaysia for evidence of trafficking and to secure the prompt response of the relevant government agencies or bodies, and non-governmental organizations to problems on trafficking in persons brought to their attention. Coordinate in the formulation of policies and monitor its implementation on issues of trafficking in persons with relevant government agencies or bodies and non-governmental organizations. Formulate and coordinate measures to inform and educate the public, including potential trafficked persons, on the causes and consequences of trafficking in persons. Cooperate and coordinate with international bodies and other similar regional bodies or committees in relation to the problems and issues of trafficking in persons including support and protection of trafficked persons. Advise the government on the issues of trafficking in persons including developments at the international level against the act of trafficking in persons. Collect and collate the data and information, and authorize research, in relation to the prevention and suppression of trafficking in persons. Perform any other functions as directed by the minister for the proper implementation of the Act.

Apart from the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, Malaysia has a comprehensive framework of laws and regulations to protect labourers, irrespective of whether local or foreign. In addition, there are nine laws and regulations, specifically, to address the issue of forced labour as follows: Employment Act 1955 which provides minimum protection to employees with regard to their terms and conditions of service consisting of working hours, wages, holidays, retrenchment benefits, etc. Workers Minimum Housing Standards and Amenities Act 1990 (Act 446) which prescribes the minimum standards of housing, to require employers to provide medical and social amenities for workers. Workmen’s Compensation Act 1952 (Act 273) which provides payment of compensation for injuries sustained in accidents during employment. Children and Young Persons (Employment) Act 1966 which provides regulations to protect children and young persons who are engaged in employment in terms of working hours, type of work, abuse, etc. Occupational Safety and Health 1994 which provides regulations to secure the safety, health and welfare of persons at work against risks to safety or health arising out of the activities of persons at work and providing industrial codes of practice to maintain or improve the standards of safety and health. Factories and Machinery Act 1967 (Act 139) which provides the control of factories with respect to matters relating to the safety, health and welfare of persons therein, the registration and inspection of machinery and for matters connected therewith. National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 which aims to set up a council to recommend the minimum wage for various sectors, regions and jobs. Labour Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 67) which provides minimum protection to employees with regard to their terms and conditions of service consisting of working hours, wages, holidays, retrenchment benefits, etc. in Sabah. Labour Ordinance (Sarawak Cap. 76) which provides minimum protection to employees with regard to their terms and conditions of service consisting of working hours, wages, holidays, retrenchment benefits, etc. in Sarawak.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative outlined the various measures taken to monitor, prevent and suppress the problem of forced labour and human trafficking. The Government had ratified several international instruments and adopted several pieces of domestic legislation in this regard. These included the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act. This Act required the establishment of a Council for Anti-Trafficking Persons, which included Government representatives and civil society groups, and had been established in 2008. The Government had also adopted the National Action Plan on Trafficking in Persons (2010–15) which outlined the national efforts to combat trafficking in persons in the areas of prevention, rehabilitation, protection and prosecution. The Plan complemented the existing legislation and aimed to provide direction and focus to efforts in order to prevent and suppress trafficking in persons. With regard to cases of trafficking, there had been an increase in the number of cases brought to court. Out of the 128 cases brought in 2013, 114 were still pending before the courts. There had also been five convictions in such cases, and the penalties of imprisonment imposed in these cases would act as a deterrent to prospective perpetrators of this crime. In addition, 128 operations related to trafficking in persons had been conducted in 2013, resulting in 89 investigations, 140 arrests and 650 victims rescued. For the purpose of uniformity, Standard Operating Procedures had been launched in November 2013 for enforcement agencies to ensure a commitment to the process of identification, referral, assistance and social inclusion of presumed or identified victims of trafficking in persons. In addition, 911 protection orders and interim protection orders had been granted. Based on complaints, as well as regular inspections, 1,663 investigations had been conducted at workplaces, while a total of 33,185 inspections had been conducted by the Department of Labour of Peninsular Malaysia. The Government was conducting awareness raising nationwide regarding the new Minimum Wages Order 2012, in order to deter labour exploitation of foreign workers. As of 2014, all employers were mandated to implement this Order, including for foreign workers. Additionally, initiatives to prevent forced labour and better protect victims of trafficking were being undertaken, including steps to: amend the Private Employment Agency Act, 1981; draft a Regulation for Domestic Workers; allow those victims of trafficking who did not require further protection and care to engage in work; and implement a pilot project for a shelter run by a non-governmental organization. In addition, the anti-trafficking legislation, supplemented by the Employment Act, 1955, and other pieces of labour legislation, addressed the issue of labour exploitation. Moreover, in order to regulate the recruitment of foreign workers, the Government had signed Memoranda of Understanding with eight source countries covering the formal sectors, as well as with the Government of Indonesia regarding the recruitment and placement of domestic workers. Moreover, the Government was currently negotiating with four other governments with the intention of concluding such agreements. The entirety of these measures indicated that the Government was committed to combatting trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants in Malaysia.

The Worker members indicated that Malaysia was a destination country for trafficking in men, women and children for purposes of prostitution and forced labour. Despite the written information supplied by the Government on the amendments to the 2007 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, it was a cause for some concern that the victims of trafficking were nowadays looked upon as irregular workers. More than half of the 120 court cases that had been brought for trafficking in 2012–13 had still not been settled, and no information was available on any sanctions imposed. The vulnerability of migrant workers to forced labour, notably in the textile, plantation and construction sectors, as well as in domestic work, was also worrying. With 2.2 million registered migrant workers and 1.3 million who were not registered, migrants made up a third of the country’s workforce. Some 40 per cent of undocumented migrant workers were thought to be women. Upon their arrival in the country, migrant workers’ passports were confiscated. Moreover, in many cases they were deceived concerning their wages and working conditions, were underpaid or had their pay withheld. From a legal standpoint, migrant workers were dependent on the placement agencies to which, since 2013, they had had to pay a commission that ought to be paid by their employer. In cases of physical or sexual abuse, they could not appeal to the courts for fear of having their contracts cancelled, whereupon they would become undocumented migrants and were liable to expulsion. Domestic workers were not protected under Malaysia’s labour legislation, were not entitled to the minimum wage and could not join trade unions. No employer had ever been charged with violating the rights of domestic workers. Although there were sometimes bilateral agreements with the country of origin, neither these agreements nor Malaysia showed any concern for the situation of migrant workers. In conclusion, while laws on this issue did exist in Malaysia, they were not applied and no sanctions had ever been imposed.

The Employer members emphasized that the Committee’s duty was of a technical nature, for it had to examine the application of a Convention on the grounds of its provisions. Hence, there was no room for political considerations on what should be the content of the Convention. Turning to the case, they observed that the Committee had to examine, for the second consecutive year, the application of the Convention by Malaysia, which was surprising since the Committee of Experts had not received new concerning facts. In that sense, for the Employer members, it was a real case of follow-up. On the grounds of the indications of the Government representative, there was some progress to be noted in what was indeed a difficult regional issue. The case concerned the problem of forced labour and trafficking of persons arising from labour migration. In this regard, they emphasized that, while the Convention imposed on States direct and serious responsibilities, the problem of exaction of forced labour of migrant workers was more a regional issue than a national issue. While the Committee of Experts was limited to examining compliance at the national level when examining the application of a Convention by a specific member State, they considered that the Committee’s discussion would be enriched if it was held on the basis of a collection of national responses of all countries concerned in South-East Asia. Due to the regional character of the issue, they welcomed the bilateral and multilateral agreements that had been concluded to tackle this issue. It was also encouraging to note that the Government indeed had undertaken a comprehensive process of labour inspection which showed that it assumed its responsibilities and was acting in good faith. This was even more noteworthy as the exaction of forced labour and the trafficking of migrant workers always occurred in the margins and shadows away from a standard process of labour inspection carried out to ensure the enforcement of law. In conclusion, and in spite of the fact that there was some progress, the Employer members stressed the need to reinforce the efforts to combat trafficking and the exaction of forced labour of migrant workers. To this end, the Government should avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO.

The Worker member of Malaysia indicated that despite the serious issues raised during the Committee’s session in 2013, there had been no initiatives taken for dialogue between the Government and the various stakeholders. There were 2.4 million authorized migrant workers in Malaysia as well as an additional 2.2 million undocumented workers. The Employment Act, 1955, had been amended to legalize the outsourcing of workers through third-party companies, which contributed to conditions amounting to forced labour. Migrant workers were at the mercy of the labour contractors and were deprived of security of tenure, social security benefits and occupational safety and health protection, and were unable to join unions. The amendments to the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act undermined efforts to combat human trafficking by narrowing the legal definition of human trafficking, and by increasing the likelihood that victims of trafficking would be treated as undocumented migrant workers subject to immediate deportation. However, the Government should be praised for establishing shelters for victims of trafficking. Nonetheless, the National Action Plan (2010–15) was only a general document, and contained few concrete steps. The Ministry of Human Resources did not have sufficient officers to address trafficking for labour exploitation, and these officers were not equipped to identify victims of trafficking. Migrant workers lacked access to justice, as those who filed cases against their employers had their work permits cancelled unilaterally, leaving them with irregular status. Irregular migrant workers were subject to arrest and punishment, and deportation procedures were often lengthy resulting in indefinite detention under poor conditions, which had resulted in the deaths of several workers. Moreover, domestic workers were not accorded the minimum standards contained in the national law. With reference to examples of abuse of domestic workers, it was underlined that there had been no consultations regarding the proposed regulations on domestic workers. Moreover, while the Minimum Wages Order, 2012, was welcomed, this Order did not apply to domestic workers, and further measures were necessary for its enforcement. The Government was urged to take steps to: welcome an ILO mission to Malaysia to meet the various stakeholders to jointly develop constructive proposals; accept ILO technical assistance without delay; establish national joint councils composed of tripartite partners and non-governmental organizations concerned with migrant workers’ issues; establish regional joint councils; ensure that employers, recruiting agents and officers who contribute to trafficking in person were effectively punished; and ensure that the travel documents of migrant workers were not kept by unauthorized personnel including employers.

The Employer member of Malaysia strongly supported the statement of the Malaysian Government. The observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of August 2013 were not supported by any evidence concerning the alleged trafficking or forced labour of foreign workers. It was clear from the information provided, that the Government had taken and implemented the necessary initiatives to combat and eliminate any practice of human trafficking or forced labour, through various ministries and agencies, such as the Council for Anti-Trafficking in Persons, which was tasked with the enforcement of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2007. The Government had also established a comprehensive framework of laws and regulations to protect foreign workers, particularly those subject to forced labour. Furthermore, a Committee established at the Ministry of the Interior met every month to coordinate the anti-trafficking policy of the Government. In the federal state of Selangor, an anti-trafficking council had even envisaged independent anti-trafficking efforts. The Government had continued its public-awareness campaigns on anti-trafficking in the print media, on radio and television, including over 600 public-service-awareness programmes on trafficking in national and federal state radio stations. Training on anti-trafficking had continuously been provided to officers with responsibilities in this regard, including to Malaysian troops prior to their deployment in international peacekeeping missions. The information submitted by the Government had indicated that there had been 120 prosecutions under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, 2007, resulting in 23 convictions with seven cases still pending. The Department of Labour had carried out 41,452 inspections in 2012 and 15,370 inspections in the first nine months of 2013 relating to forced or compulsory labour practices. It should be noted that no forced or compulsory labour practices were recorded in the first nine months of 2013. All the initiatives taken showed that the Government had taken the necessary and adequate measures within its capacity and means. They also showed the commitment of the Government and refuted any statements according to which it had failed to take any action since the last discussion of the case in the Conference Committee.

The Government member of Singapore welcomed the concrete efforts and measures taken by the Government to eliminate trafficking in persons, including: the adoption of relevant laws, such as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2007; a National Action Plan for 2010–15 focusing on prevention, rehabilitation, protection and prosecution; and the prosecution and conviction of a number of perpetrators by the national courts, including information on the specific penalties imposed in 2012 and 2013. The speaker also noted that additional initiatives were envisaged for the better protection of victims of trafficking, including allowing those who did not require protection and care, to work instead of being placed in shelter homes. Furthermore, he noted the pilot project for an NGO to run a shelter home providing assistance to victims, with support from the Government. The Government had been taking proactive and resolute steps to address the challenges in tackling and combating trafficking in persons. These efforts should be encouraged and further assistance provided to help the country to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.

The Worker member of Indonesia indicated that Malaysia remained the leading destination for the majority of Indonesia’s migrant workers and that of the 1.2 million registered Indonesian workers in Malaysia, 70 per cent were female domestic workers. There were several reasons why trafficking originated from Indonesia. Firstly, many undocumented workers, which were at a higher risk of becoming trafficking victims, could easily pass into Malaysia through sea or land borders. Secondly, workers became victims of organized crime syndicates that recruited a significant number of young women by promising work in restaurants and hotels, or by the use of “Guest Relations Officer” visas and false documents, but were subsequently coerced into Malaysia’s commercial sex trade. Reports alleged that collusion between individual police officers and trafficking offenders led to the worsening of these practices. Others became trafficking victims through accumulated debts with labour recruiters, both licensed and unlicensed companies, which used debt bondage to hold documents and threats of violence to keep migrants in forced labour. These were the reasons why the Indonesian Government stopped sending migrant workers to Malaysia between June 2009 and December 2011, and only reauthorized it after an amended Memorandum of Understanding was signed by both countries, guaranteeing that Indonesian workers would enjoy basic rights such as minimum wages and keeping their own passport, and agreeing to improve the practice of recruitment agencies regarding placement fees, dispute settlement and tightening the process of issuing visas. Great hope initially rested on this Memorandum of Understanding, but it had not been fully implemented and it was important that non-state actors, namely unions, be involved in the monitoring of its implementation. The Malaysian Trade Union Congress had been willing to support and recruit migrant workers as part of their union, but the immigration law prohibited migrant workers from joining trade union activities. Domestic workers were also being categorized as informal workers, leaving them without adequate protection when they needed help. National laws and the Memorandum of Understanding could be more effective if trade unions were able to represent the interests of migrant workers. There was no clear policy acknowledging migrant workers as having the right to enjoy the same legal protection as national workers. Malaysia and Indonesia needed to quickly ratify the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), so that all domestic workers could be recognized by the law and spared from abuse. Since the Government publicly acknowledged the human trafficking problem, he called upon the Government to show a greater commitment to addressing the issue, including through increased investigations and prosecutions of offences and identification of victims, increased efforts to prosecute trafficking-related corruption by government officials, and greater collaboration with NGOs and international organizations to improve victim services in government shelters.

The Government member of Brunei Darussalam stated his Government’s support for the response of the Government to the observations made by the Conference Committee regarding its compliance with the Convention. He recalled that Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia had shared special relations and cooperation for decades. His Government acknowledged and appreciated the concerns raised by the Conference Committee, but also wished to highlight the positive initiatives and efforts that had been conducted and strategically implemented, namely: the establishment of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2007; the efforts toward the strengthening of legal mechanisms dealing with trafficking in persons; and the improvement of the protection and rehabilitation of victims, with resources allocated to combating trafficking in labour through systematic inspections and investigations.

The Worker member of the Philippines expressed the view that the situation of migrant workers had not improved since the discussion in the Conference Committee in 2013, and required more appropriate and bold actions and initiatives. He indicated that Malaysia was a country of destination and, to a lesser extent, a source and transit country for trafficking in persons. The majority of trafficking victims voluntarily immigrated to Malaysia in search of a better life, and while many offenders were individual business people, large organized crime syndicates with connections to high government officials were also involved. Many young women were recruited for work in Malaysian restaurants or hotels, some of whom migrated through the use of “Guest Relations Officer” visas, but were subsequently coerced into Malaysia’s commercial sex trade. There were about 2 million documented workers, and about the same amount of undocumented workers in the country. Many migrant workers faced restrictions on movement, deceit and fraud in wages, passport confiscation or debt bondage. While the Government had passed the 2007 Anti-Trafficking and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, victims were more likely to be treated as undocumented migrants than as victims, and were therefore subject to immediate deportation. Only a few prosecutions or arrests for forced labour had been reported. On the contrary, the speaker referred to a case where an Indonesian girl identified as a victim of trafficking by the authorities had been prosecuted for theft, with her employer being left unpunished. The country should therefore intensify its efforts to identify victims of trafficking and investigate and prosecute the crime. It should also increase its efforts to prosecute corruption by government officials in relation to trafficking and enhance collaboration with trade unions, NGOs and international organizations to assist victims in government shelters. Bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries should also be encouraged and closely monitored to ensure effective enforcement.

The Government member of Myanmar welcomed the various efforts and measures of the Government with regard to the elimination of trafficking in persons, not only at the national, but also at the regional and international levels. These measures had included the adoption of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2007, and the establishment of the National Action Plan (2010–15). It was positive to learn that the initiatives were also in accordance with regional and international instruments, such as the ASEAN Declaration Against Trafficking in Persons Particularly Women and Children, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The additional initiatives to provide better protection for victims of trafficking in persons were also welcomed. Furthermore, the memoranda of understanding with at least 13 countries on the recruitment and placement of domestic workers and the current negotiations with other countries to this effect, including Myanmar, were also positive developments.

The Worker member of France noted that workers’ rights in Malaysia were gradually being diminished by a Government which afforded more importance to the welfare of enterprises than the welfare of workers. The increasingly common practice of using recruitment agencies was an illustration of that. In fact, migrant workers had no direct contact with their employers as the agency served as their employer. In addition, those agencies profited from migrants’ work by levying almost half of the wages earned, including for overtime and work on weekends and public holidays. Moreover, until 2013, employers using those recruitment agencies had to pay a placement fee. A government decision of 30 January 2013, however, currently authorized employers to recover the sum paid to the agencies by deducting it from workers’ wages. The Government indicated that the measure was intended to reduce labour costs. The fee should simply have been scrapped since it in fact fell on the workers by drawing them into a spiral of debt and vulnerability. In order to break a contract, employers only had to inform the recruitment agency that they no longer needed the worker, and to communicate with the ministry responsible for immigration so that the migrant would be returned to the country of origin. Many employers preferred to utilize that workforce rather than a local workforce so as to avoid employment relations. The recruitment agencies thus became “labour service providers”. However, under Malaysian legislation, those practices were illegal. The employment of workers through recruitment agencies was authorized, however such agencies were not supposed to take the place of employers. The Government had recalled in 2010, that outsourcing companies were responsible only for organizing the entry of workers into the country and that the employers were bound to ensure that all the rights of workers were recognized and respected, and to meet all their legal obligations. Employers therefore could not escape employment relations with their workers by claiming that the responsibility fell on the recruitment agency. Furthermore, employers had additional obligations to those workers, beyond the workplace and working time, since they should usually provide accommodation and ensure social security coverage. The law should prevent employers from disregarding existing regulations and engaging migrant workers in conditions of forced labour, as such a situation was unacceptable.

The Government member of Switzerland expressed concern about the allegations of trafficking in persons and the absence of adequate court proceedings in that area. Additionally, the Committee of Experts had reported a deterioration of the situation and treatment of migrant workers, as it appeared they were criminalized rather than protected from abuse. The Swiss Government commended the Government’s efforts to address those issues, but invited it to intensify them. To that end, the Government should formulate regulations on domestic workers and legislation on migrant workers in general, as recommended to it by other United Nations bodies.

The Government member of the Russian Federation considered that the current debate was the last stage in the examination of the case. Malaysian legislation was in conformity with the Convention and provided for heavy sanctions in cases of trafficking in persons. Additionally, the Government had concluded bilateral agreements and agreements with the countries of origin of migrant workers, which were of particular importance. It was taking subsequent action in the framework of the legislation and bilateral agreements. He concluded by inviting the Government to strengthen its efforts, and in particular to protect the rights of migrant workers. The Government should provide information to the ILO, which in turn should continue to provide technical assistance to the Government.

The Government representative expressed his Government’s respect and heartfelt appreciation for the many views and complimentary comments submitted by the tripartite members with regard to the pertinent issues raised in relation to the application of the Convention. Having regard to the policy of securing a well-balanced growth between social and economic development and the demand for social equity, preservation of dignity, respect, and care for the well-being of people, he reiterated that the Government had undertaken to regularize and heighten its collaborative engagement with the domestic tripartite constituents, in addition to regulating and promulgating policies to solicit and bind common cooperation with governments and the international community so as to minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility of human trafficking across boundaries. The launch by the Government of the National Action Plan against Trafficking in Persons (2010–15), on 30 March 2010, reflected its commitment and aspiration to combating the crime of trafficking in persons. The plan outlined several guiding principles, strategic goals and programmes undertaken by the Government which guided the nation in its mission to deal with this heinous crime. The Government’s firm and persistent policy was to secure the continued and constructive execution of principles that had been identified as fundamental in guiding and ensuring the smooth implementation of the Government’s National Action Plan. It was also pertinent to establish close cooperation and coordination, as well as implementing integrated actions, with respect to information sharing, entry point control, delimitation, prevention, investigation and prosecution, among enforcement agencies, relevant ministries and agencies, including state governments and local authorities, so as to ensure that victims were given timely protection and that perpetrators were punished. The Government strongly believed in the importance of tripartite engagement for overcoming irregular practices with regard to human trafficking. The speaker urged the employers and workers to work hand in hand with the Government in order to achieve this common goal. Such commitment would certainly take into consideration the very subject matter addressed in the Conference Committee’s discussion in this regard. He reiterated that the Government, through the Council of Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants, had had regular engagement with several relevant government ministries and departments over the years, with a view to innovating new ways of tackling and managing issues associated with trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants, this amidst challenges in the labour market. The Government needed collaborative networking and the unwavering support by all concerned in order to ensure the smooth implementation of its policy. The complex and challenging issues relating to trafficking in persons and the mobilization of persons across regions needed to be regulated effectively.

The Worker members recalled that in 2013, the Conference Committee had requested the Government to take immediate and effective steps, but that it had not done so and had followed none of the Committee’s recommendations. According to the Malaysian trade unions, there had been no social dialogue either, with the Government merely organizing public-awareness workshops and training a special team of 43 officials. In spite of the large number of workplace inspection visits that had been carried out (more than 15,000 in the first nine months of 2013), the labour inspectorate had failed to uncover a single instance of forced labour. In the document the Government had submitted to the Office, it cited nine laws and regulations that dealt with forced labour, but the Worker members wondered what purpose such a juridical arsenal of provisions could serve if the number of migrant workers engaged in forced labour in Malaysia continued to rise. The Government should adopt effective measures that afforded migrant workers full protection and allowed them to exercise their rights, especially their right to compensation in cases of abuse. Victims of forced labour should no longer be treated as delinquents. As to domestic workers, the Government should enforce the Minimum Standards Act and ratify Convention No. 189. More than anything, the Government should ensure compliance with all legislation that prohibited the confiscation of passports, provided for compulsory insurance against occupational accidents and banned placement recruitment agencies from acting as employers. Purveyors of forced labour should be taken to court and sentenced to fines that were genuinely dissuasive. The Worker members called on the Government to: establish a national migration board composed of representatives of all the parties concerned, including the social partners and NGOs in order to monitor migration policy; set up regional boards to work with the source countries of migrant workers and with social workers and NGOs in order to monitor the compliance of bilateral agreements with Convention No. 29 and other fundamental Conventions; and to accept a direct contacts mission to assess the entire situation.

The Employer members stated that the discussion had overlapped with issues of labour migration and practices of recruitment agencies, and asserted that the Conference Committee should only supervise issues within the scope of the Convention. They indicated that while differences had emerged during the discussion, there was also a strong determination that this Convention should be robustly supervised for all countries, including Malaysia, and that forced labour needed to be eradicated. The difference was that while the Worker members considered that no substantial progress had been achieved, the Employer members saw this as a case of progress, considering that the Government had presented a series of steps which provided a solid response to the Conference Committee’s June 2013 discussion. In addition, they were encouraged by the Government’s acknowledgment of the issue in this case and of the fact that its journey was incomplete and that it required the support of external actors. They encouraged the Government to use the capacities of the ILO and those existing within the country, and pointed out that multiple tools were available to help it resolve its forced labour issues. They finished by stating that further progress could be made, but that strong national determination was necessary in order to achieve this.