Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)

Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation) Convention, 1925 (No. 19) - Malaysia - Sarawak (Ratification: 1964)



Malaysia – Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak

A Government representative indicated that the Government had noted the concerns raised by the Committee in 2017 as well as its conclusions calling for the re-establishment of equality of treatment through the extension of the coverage of the Employees’ Social Security Scheme (ESS) to foreign workers. The Government had in fact agreed to extend the protection of the ESS, which would come under the Social Security Organization (SOCSO), to foreign workers and had taken serious measures over the past year to that effect. However, that process needed to be done in a just and fair manner and at a pace that was comfortable to both employers and workers, as well as the insurance panels, the system provider and the SOCSO. A period to ensure the smooth transition of foreign workers to the ESS was needed to allow for the establishment of implementation mechanisms, databases and roadmaps, and the organization of engagement sessions with stakeholders and the social partners to accommodate the change. Over the past year, the Government had taken several steps to strengthen and enhance the existing Workmen’s Compensation Scheme (WCS) with the objective of phasing it out during a transition period of a maximum of three years. This transition period was needed in view of three main factors. First, the SOCSO had only recently been made responsible for the implementation of the Employment Insurance System and needed a certain time for the funds to be sustainable and the administrative matters related to the Employment Insurance System to operate smoothly. In addition, the existing Social Security Act would need to be amended. Secondly, there existed contractual obligations with the insurance panels and the system provider of the e-compensation scheme. Lastly, employers needed to be provided with ample time to adjust to the changes that would occur when the WCS shifted to the ESS. In light of the recent changes that had occurred in the Government, the transition plan would be submitted to the new administration for consideration and approval. The Government was ready to take immediate action, which included further deliberations and engagement with the social partners. No foreign worker should be left without coverage for both employment and non-employment injuries. It was the responsibility of states to protect the rights of foreign workers and prevent all forms of discrimination. But it should be noted that access to medical care had always been made available to all workers, regardless of their status. The Government fully supported the principles of equality of treatment and was committed to complying with the request of the Committee to ensure that foreign workers had access to accident compensation. The Government had already sought ILO technical expertise and was ready to forge closer collaboration with the guidance and approval of the new administration. Discussions would be held and technical assistance be sought from the Office on the matter under discussion with a view to developing appropriate mechanisms to overcome any issues that might arise.

The Worker members stated that, for over two decades, the ILO supervisory mechanisms had been addressing the persistent issue of equal treatment of migrant workers, in particular with respect to employment injury. Since 1993, the Committee of Experts had addressed the transfer of foreign workers, employed in Malaysia for up to five years from the ESS, which provided for periodical payments to victims of industrial accidents, to the WCS, which guaranteed only a lump sum payment of a significantly lower amount. Lowering the protection afforded to migrant workers was a clear breach of Article 1 of the Convention, which required ratifying States to grant to migrant workers who suffered injury due to industrial accidents which occurred in its territory, or to their dependents, the same treatment in respect of workmen’s compensation as it granted to its own nationals. The Committee had discussed the case on multiple occasions, requesting the extension of the coverage of the ESS to migrant workers and the development, in consultation with the social partners, of laws and regulations that would ensure the removal of discriminatory practices between migrant and national workers. It had also noted with deep regret that the Government had taken no measures to implement the conclusions of the Committee, nor had it responded to the Committee of Expert’s express request to provide a detailed report on the application of the Convention. For many years, millions of migrant workers had been affected by this discriminatory treatment, despite filling substantial shortages in the supply of low-skilled labour for key economic sectors. It was estimated that around 20–30 per cent of the country’s workforce was constituted of migrant workers coming from a number of different countries, such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. In addition to the 2 million legally registered migrant workers, there were also several million undocumented migrant workers. It was estimated that between 1 and 4 million undocumented migrant workers who were engaged in the most hazardous jobs were not eligible for any compensation. Approximately one third of the workers in the agricultural, manufacturing and construction sectors were migrant workers, with migrant workers making up to 70 per cent of workers in the agricultural sector. Although those industries had contributed 297 billion ringgits (€63 billion) or 35.7 per cent of Malaysia’s gross domestic product in 2014, the rate of occupational accidents was extremely high. According to official data, between January and October 2017, the Department of Occupational Safety and Health had recorded 1,645 workplace accidents causing permanent or temporary disability and 46 fatal accidents in the manufacturing sector alone. In the same period, the construction industry and the agricultural sector had claimed the lives of 63 and 18 workers, respectively. Given that official statistics only took into account investigated accidents, it was estimated that the real number of workplace accidents was even higher. Despite those appalling numbers and the enormous contribution of migrant labour to the economic growth and development of Malaysia over the years, the Government continued to deny equal and fair treatment to migrant workers. While under the ESS, a permanently injured worker was entitled to a periodical cash benefit of 90 per cent of his/her “assumed average daily wage” (section 22b and the fourth Schedule of the Social Security Act), permanently injured migrant workers in the same situation would only be entitled to a lump sum payment of 62 months’ salary or 23,000 ringgits (around €4,900) under section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (WCA). The payment of a lump sum instead of periodic payments in itself amounted to a differentiation in the quality of the protection provided, as existing global evidence demonstrated. Furthermore, the level of the lump sum payment provided to migrant workers was a mere fraction of the amount to which Malaysian workers were entitled in the exact same situation. An actuarial simulation undertaken by the ILO, estimated that a national worker was entitled to a total of 425,000 ringgits, with periodic payments calculated as a lump sum. According to that simulation, migrant workers were entitled to about 23,000 ringgits which meant that they were only entitled to 5.4 per cent of the benefits received by Malaysian workers. Such a level of discrimination between workers in the twenty-first century was shocking and appalling to say the very least.

With regard to medical care, Malaysian workers were entitled to the free treatment of injuries at any public hospital or clinic, with the medical bill being settled by the ESS fund. Under the WCS, medical expenses for work injuries were borne by the employer, which exposed migrant workers to possible abuses, as employers might refuse to pay for the necessary treatment. In addition, migrant workers could only claim refunds for medical costs after they had fully recovered, and even then it usually took several months for them to be refunded, leaving them with no means of survival in the meantime. Undocumented migrant workers ran the risk of being arrested while attempting to access medical treatment. Furthermore, a national worker who sustained a workplace injury causing a temporary inability to work for at least four days was entitled to temporary disability benefits equivalent to 80 per cent of his or her wage. Migrant workers temporarily incapacitated due to workplace injury were only entitled to half-monthly payments equivalent to one third of their monthly wage. It should be noted that migrant workers were subject to other forms of unequal treatment. As the Committee had noted in its 2016 examination of the application in the country of the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), migrant workers still faced a number of practical obstacles to collective bargaining, in particular due to insecure employment contracts and vulnerability due to anti-union discrimination. In addition, the estimated 300,000 to 400,000 migrant domestic workers employed in Malaysia were still denied basic labour protection under national laws, and suffered from abusive working conditions, including cases of forced labour. The Government had taken severe measures with regard to undocumented migrant workers. In July 2017, the Malaysian authorities had arrested over 3,300 undocumented migrant workers who had failed to register for an E-card. Due to their fear of detention and deportation, many migrant workers had gone into hiding, which severely limited their access to social protection. The Worker members expressed their deep concern at the situation of migrant workers, who constituted a significant part of the working population of the country. Despite numerous discussions in the Committee, the technical advice provided by the ILO and the Government’s statements that it would take the measures, they had not materialized so far. They urged the Government, with the greatest insistence, to bring its legislation and social security institutions into conformity with the Convention and to ensure equal treatment between migrant and national workers with respect to occupational injuries in an effective and expeditious manner. As a party to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), Malaysia was required to undertake legislative reforms to eliminate all discriminatory provisions. The new Government had renewed Malaysia’s commitment to undertaking such necessary reforms. They expected that the Government would fully honour its commitments by taking swift and concrete action to eliminate all forms of discrimination against migrant workers.

The Employer members recalled the numerous observations that had been made by the Committee of Experts over a number of years. In addition to the technical issues raised by the Worker members, it was important to consider the context of the situation. The examination of the case concerned Malaysia and Malaysia – Peninsular, that is, Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia. Malaysia was a federal state. It was made up of 13 federal states and three federal territories, divided between two regions. Governance of the state was divided between the federal and state governments, while the federal government exercised direct administration over the federal territories. Of particular note was the fact that the states of East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) had separate immigration policies and controls, and a unique residency status. Visas were required for travel between those two states or between either state and Peninsular Malaysia, which created a number of issues, including in terms of the administration of the schemes at the national level. The situation giving rise to the discussion of the case had begun in 1993, when foreign workers had been transferred from the ESS, which provided for periodical payments to victims of industrial accidents, to the WSC, which guaranteed only a lump sum payment of compensation for industrial accidents. Over the years, the supervisory bodies had expressed concern at the differences in those schemes, indicated by the Worker members. The Government’s intention to carry out reforms and to align or realign the provisions applicable to foreign workers with the scheme for national workers should be welcomed. However, they also noted that as far back as 2011, the Government had indicated that a technical committee the Ministry of Human Resources, including all stakeholders, had considered the three following options: (1) the extension of the ESS to cover foreign workers; (2) the creation of a special scheme for foreign workers under the ESS; and (3) raising the level of benefits provided by the WSC to an equivalent level to those provided by the ESS. That was not the first time that the Government had provided similar information, and concrete action was not expected. It should be noted that the Government had expressed its willingness and commitment to address the situation before the present Committee.

They were aware that making those changes was easier said than done, considering a number of existing challenges. Under the ESS, workers were required to contribute for a minimum of 24 months before they or their family could receive any benefits, in the event of industrial accidents or occupational diseases. Foreign workers had often not been in the country long enough to have access to those benefits, while under the WSC, they were covered immediately in case of injury. While there were differences in the monetary compensation, as indicated by the Worker members, other elements also needed to be taken into account. Since foreign workers were generally contracted for fewer than 24 months, it had become evident that the ESS scheme was not suitable for them, at least not in its current form. Taking into account the large number of migrant workers concerned and their statistically high accident rate, achieving the objective of equity required the reconciliation of three main factors: first, the administrative and practical difficulties that impeded equal treatment of migrant workers, including that migrant workers were typically in Malaysia for project-type work, usually fewer than 24 months. Also, if they were incapacitated in industrial accidents, they were often repatriated making compensation an administrative challenge. Second, there was the question of whether or not the Convention required absolute equality of treatment. The actual requirement of the Convention was that workers had to receive the same treatment, which was often not possible for practical reasons. That raised the question of a broader interpretation, for example whether treatment of equal value was as acceptable as exactly the same treatment. Third, irrespective of the interpretation chosen, and given that the ESS scheme was difficult to apply to workers who were not in the country for the minimum qualifying period, it was essential to determine the actuarial equivalence of the lump sum paid under the WCS to migrant workers to the value of the periodic payments. The comparison between the value of the periodical benefits and that of a lump sum benefit was a particularly delicate and technical question. Depending on the answer, it was possible for the WCS to be viewed as a valid way of managing employment injury and invalidity benefits for foreign workers in Malaysia. This could require the adjustment of the payment. But the quantum of compensation was not the only consideration as coverage was also important. The ESS scheme applied only to workplace accidents (including commuting) that resulted in at least four days of sick leave, whereas no such restrictions applied to the WCS. With respect to coverage, the WCS was arguably more favourable to foreign workers than the ESS was to nationals. A number of other member States with federal or state jurisdictions faced similar challenges. That was the reason why a number of such States did not ratify Conventions unless their federal laws required compliance by States. However, since it was arguably outside the mandate of the Committee to request that member States to change their constitutions, it should be recognized that a solution to the issue was unlikely to involve the application of the domestic scheme directly to migrant workers. Instead, a hybrid solution should be sought to achieve a sustainable outcome, taking into account the practical challenges. In conclusion, the Committee should acknowledge the Government’s commitment to making progress on the issue, as well as its commitment to the value of equivalence. The Government should, as soon as possible, provide plans and processes on how it intended to achieve progress.

The Worker member of Malaysia said that Malaysia was a major destination country for migrant workers in Asia. There were about 2 million migrant workers with regular immigration status, while it was estimated that there were about 4 million migrant workers in an irregular situation, with an accurate number for the latter still being unavailable. The Committee had examined the case for the first time in 1996 after the downgrading of migrant workers from the ESS to the WCS in 1993. The compensation for workplace accidents involving migrant workers had continued to remain blatantly unequal. For example, national workers under the ESS were entitled to two forms of payment: temporary disablement and invalidity payment. They were also entitled to other additional benefits such as medical benefits, constant attendance allowance, vocational rehabilitation, dependants’ funeral and education benefits. On the other hand, migrant workers were entitled to a one-off payment under an insurance scheme that had to be purchased by employers, on the condition that the employers had purchased it. The insurance benefit entitlements provided constituted about US$2,500 to $6,281 for accidental death or permanent disability sustained during working hours. Migrant workers could also claim meagre sums for medical treatment and approximately US$1,206 could be claimed for repatriation and funeral expenses. If migrant workers were injured outside working hours, they had to sustain a permanent disability to benefit from an insurance which was supposed to cover loss of pay, compensation, treatment costs and reparation. Migrant workers in Malaysia were largely employed in dangerous jobs without sufficient protective equipment or training, and they also lived in very poor conditions. A high incidence of workplace accidents and commuting accidents had been documented, with the largest number of occupational injuries and deaths occurring in the manufacturing, construction and agricultural sectors, all of which were major sectors of employment for migrant workers. In 2018, the death of three migrant workers had caught the attention of the media. The 28-year-old Adelina had died in February 2018 at Taman Kota Permai Bukit Mertajam as a result of abuse. A post-mortem report found that she had died of organ failures, and the police had not ruled out the possibility that, in addition to being beaten and slapped, the maid’s health had also been neglected, including by not giving her proper food and shelter for several months. The family had been paid an amount equivalent to three years’ wages that had not been paid and compensation for the family, which had included the costs of repatriation and the funeral. In another case, an Indian migrant worker, Mr Lathif, a 22-year-old documented worker in Malaysia since January 2018, had been pinned under an overturned tractor while working in an oil palm plantation. He had died in May 2018 as a result of his serious injuries. The meagre compensation sum had yet to be paid to the family. Moreover, Haironnissa, an Indonesian migrant worker, had died of a high fever while in service. The panel clinic doctor had refused to refer her to hospital for further treatment. Her supervisor and production officer had failed to assist her, and she had died after her parents had taken her back to Indonesia. Action was still pending to investigate the company. Since January 2018, the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) had been informed of 42 cases concerning occupational accidents of migrant workers. A total of 60 per cent of those workers had suffered salary deductions, inadequate access to medical treatment and were unable to work. No steps had been taken to implement the objectives of the Eleventh Malaysia Plan (2016–20), namely: (1) developing and implementing a comprehensive immigration and employment policy for migrant workers; (2) engaging with the tripartite constituents; and (3) providing the Committee with the detailed reports requested in 2011 and 2017. This was the fifth time since 1996 that the Committee had examined the Government’s failure to comply with the Convention. While the issue remained unresolved, the life, safety and security of migrant workers continued to be at stake. After 60 years, the Government had been replaced. The new Government should undo the wrong that had been done and reinstate equality of treatment of migrant workers in conformity with the Convention in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of Experts without any further delay.

The Employer member of Malaysia noted that foreign workers in Malaysia were currently insured under the WCS, established by the WCA. The scheme had been working well, as foreign workers were provided many benefits, including: a lump sum payment for injuries or death; payments for injuries sustained during work; and payment for repatriating the deceased body to the country of origin in the event of death. The Labour Department was empowered to assess speedily claims for workmen’s compensation, receive payments from the respective insurance company and disburse workmen’s compensations to the dependants of deceased workers. Finally, the insurance premium under the WCS, ranging from 68 to 72 ringgits per employee per year, was fully paid by employers. More concretely, the types of benefits and compensation under the WCS were the following: (1) in the case of temporary disablement: half-monthly payments of up to 165 ringgits for up to of five years; (2) in the event of permanent total disablement: payments in the amount of wages for 60 months or 23,000 ringitts (whichever amount was inferior); if in need of constant personal assistance, an additional 25 per cent would be added to the compensation; (3) in the event of permanent partial disablement: a percentage of 23,000 ringgits depending on the degree of physical impairment or loss of earning capacity; (4) in the case of death during work or commuting: payments of the amount of wages for 60 months or 18,000 ringgits (whichever was inferior); (5) in the case of death or permanent total disablement: 23,000 ringgits; and (6) repatriation expenses for death or permanent total disablement: 4,800 ringgits. Taking into account those benefits and the accident coverage, it was ironic that the Committee had insisted on multiple occasions that foreign workers should be placed under SOCSO coverage, without examining whether that was really beneficial for foreign workers. For example, under the Employment Injury Scheme, coverage was limited to workplace employment injury, which included commuting injury, which had to fulfill the criteria that the sick leave arising out of employment injury was at least four days of unavailability for work, as compared to the WCS which provided for 24-hour coverage. In view of the above, while the examination by the Committee was based on the technical issues of equality of treatment, there was no realization that placing foreign workers under the SOCSO would be to their detriment. The insistence of the Committee to examine the present case would eventually result in foreign workers being covered by the Employment Injury Scheme which was only applicable for workplace employment injury, instead of the WCS, which provided 24-hour coverage with a list of benefits as indicated above which were superior and more beneficial than the benefits under the SOCSO Employment Injury Scheme.

The Government member of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States as well as Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, Norway and the Member of the European Economic Area) said that the EU–Malaysia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement concluded two years ago had further strengthened its bilateral cooperation with the EU and had encompassed a wide range of areas, including human rights and sectoral cooperation on labour and employment. Nevertheless, it was deeply regrettable that the case had already been discussed the previous year by the Committee and that the discriminatory treatment of foreign workers was a long-standing issue that had persisted since 1993, despite recurrent calls by the Committee to putting an end to the practice. Since the detailed report, as requested by the Committee, had not been provided by the Government, she was bound to reiterate the same comments as the previous year. Migrant workers provided much needed skills and made an invaluable contribution to the social and economic development of Malaysia and often filled jobs that were considered undesirable by nationals. Yet their contribution was often not fully recognized, and they remained vulnerable to precarious conditions, abusive practices and unequal treatment, which contributed, among other issues, to an increased risk of accidents and health problems. She therefore urged the Government to take prompt measures to extend the social security scheme for national workers to foreign workers in order to bring an end to that discriminatory practice and ensure equal treatment of foreign workers, particularly with regard to accident compensation. In conclusion, she reiterated the commitment of the EU to a constructive engagement and partnership with Malaysia.

The Government member of Thailand, speaking on behalf of the member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), welcomed the progress made by the Government and its willingness to extend the social security scheme to foreign workers, as well as the measures adopted. The Government should be encouraged to continue its efforts to realize its commitment with respect to the Convention, in particular to ensure equal treatment of foreign workers with regard to accident compensation. The Committee should consider the efforts made by the Government.

The Worker member of the United States recalled that there were two distinct workers’ compensation systems in Malaysia: one for Malaysians, the other for registered migrant workers. Unregistered migrant workers were not covered by any kind of accident compensation, even though they outnumbered registered migrant workers by an estimated two to one. To be cynical, there were actually three schemes in Malaysia: the ESS, WCS and nothing at all. There was no accountability for employers in relation to purchasing the workers’ compensation insurance. If an employer purchased no insurance, inadequate insurance or insurance with exclusions (for example, for injuries that occurred without the proper safety equipment), it was only the injured worker that suffered. Moreover, the registration of migrant workers was tied to specific employers. If a worker was injured performing work for another employer, not only was the worker no longer covered by the WCS, but he faced the risk of being arrested when seeking medical attention and of being deported. The WCS set a maximum limit for lump sum payments, which were abused by employers. For example, a Nepali construction worker had a workplace accident that had resulted in the loss of four fingers. The medical costs had been more than the 25,000 ringgits provided by the insurance policy. His employer had not only used the entire lump sum payment to pay for the medical expenses but was now charging the worker for the expenses, in excess of the policy. The worker was, in fact, paying for the injury, rather than being compensated for it. Sadly, under the WCS, that was a “best case” scenario, as that worker’s employer had purchased an insurance policy for the maximum amount. In the absence of labour inspections, there was no way of holding employers accountable for compliance with the minimum guarantees under the WCA, which was already in violation of the Convention, and did not cover two-thirds of the migrant workforce in the country. There was also no way for workers to lodge complaints for inadequate insurance, and particularly no way for them to do so without fear of retaliation. Not only was the existence of two accident compensation schemes for national and migrant workers plainly discriminatory and in violation of the Convention, but it was also exploitative of migrant workers. The WCA was a legal means of refusing to take care of workers injured at work, and offered a convenient means of avoiding obligations once the lump sum was paid. It was that kind of exploitation that the Convention sought to eliminate.

The Worker member of Singapore noted that, although the laws did not explicitly discriminate against migrant workers, in practice the rights of migrant workers were not fully protected due to the inaction of the Government. There were several examples. First, according to the Employee Provident Fund Act, 1991 (Act No. 452), contributions to the Employee Provident Fund were mandatory, but were voluntary for migrant workers. Moreover, migrant workers could withdraw savings only in the even of death, mental or physical incapacitation, or their return to their country of origin. Secondly, pursuant to the Trade Union Act, 1959 (No. 262), Malaysian workers could organize and form trade unions, while migrant workers only had this right if their employers had no objection. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs had set an absolute prohibition on migrant workers from joining any sort of association. Thirdly, under the Employment Act, 1955, every worker had to have a contract of employment clearly naming the employer. However, migrant workers were faced with the absence of employment contracts or contracts with less favourable conditions than those agreed before departure from their country of origin. Some employers did not renew the permit of workers, resulting in migrants losing their legal status. Migrant workers were also faced with issues regarding the right to collective bargaining, the non-payment of wages, unfair dismissal and the lack of protective workplace equipment. He referred to a pending complaint to a regional Labour Department concerning a Nepali worker who had been injured, who had not received any wages during his period of medical leave, and who had had to pay his medical expenses. Without paying 3,000 ringgits to the placement agency, he would not be able to return to his country of origin. As a result of an investigation by the Regional Labour Department, various labour law violations had been determined. Discriminatory practices such as those described above were occurring to migrant workers on a daily basis. Considering that the issue relating to the Convention had persisted for over 20 years, he called on the Government to restore migrant workers under the SOCSO and to ensure equal treatment and protection of migrant workers.

The Worker member of Australia said that the significantly inferior compensation rights of migrant workers were a direct breach of the Convention and remained of serious concern. According to estimates, between 4 and 6 million migrant workers were working in Malaysia. A large percentage of them were engaged by outsourcing or recruitment agencies, with more than 2,000 agencies in Malaysia alone. Legislative changes had made migrant workers employees of those agencies rather than of the employers for whom they provided labour, with those agencies organizing the legal documents. Although illegal, many migrant workers faced debt bondage situations. The withholding of passports was common and human trafficking occurred on an increasing scale. An Amnesty International report in 2010 had found that migrant workers were highly depended on the agents because, if they left or were dismissed by the agency their status changed to being illegal. Referring to the example of a Nepalese migrant worker employed by a recruitment agency, who did not know the name of his employer, which made it difficult to claim accident compensation, she emphasized that the current system meant that it was difficult to obtain a clear picture of the incidence of injury among migrant workers. Outsourcing also further limited the capacity of the labour inspectorate, which already made very few labour inspections. Despite past offers of ILO technical assistance, the breaches of the Convention had persisted.

The Worker member of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Indonesian Workers Welfare Union (IWWU), the Cambodian Labour Confederation (CLC), the Confederation of Trade Unions of Myanmar (CTUM), the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU), the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and the Center of United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO) if the Philippines emphasized that, despite the vital role played by migrant workers in the development of the South-East Asian region, they were often subject to abuse. Malaysia had benefited greatly from the employment of migrant workers in several economically important sectors, such as manufacturing, construction and plantations. However, the situation regarding migrant workers, particularly with respect to employment injury compensation, was not in accordance with the Convention and it was necessary to take bold action. The high incidence of workplace accidents and deaths among foreign workers in Malaysia was of serious concern. At a current side event during the present session of the International Labour Conference, the interregional trade union organizations (Asia and the Pacific, Africa, America, Arab States, South-East Asia and South Asian) had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to join and coordinate efforts with a view to better promoting the protection of migrant workers across the region. During the signing ceremony of that MOU, the Director-General had expressed ILO commitment to support the initiative. The Government should demonstrate a similar commitment to ensure that the issues of migrant workers were addressed effectively.

The Government representative said that all the comments made during the discussion would be taken seriously as they would help the Government to improve the situation in the country. Support was being sought from the Employer and Worker members of the country and particularly the latter, to act as a catalyst in realizing the transfer of the protection of foreign workers by the ESS. Managing the welfare of foreign workers had always been a priority for the Government, as set out in the Eleventh Malaysia Plan (2016–20). The Government was committed to this priority, despite the recent change of administration, and would ensure that the quality of protection for all workers in the country was in accordance with international labour standards, and particularly those Conventions that had been ratified by the country. The Government had agreed to expand the coverage of the ESS to foreign workers, which would be done in a progressive and cautious manner. He concluded by assuring the full and undivided commitment of the Government to make efforts to ensure that Malaysia abided by the principles of the Convention.

The Employer members said that the main issues raised in the discussion related to the different benefits to which foreign and national workers were entitled, and the practical challenges relating to the reintroduction of equal treatment for foreign and national workers. The discussion had shown the many instances and scenarios that could occur with regard to documented and undocumented foreign workers. The Government needed to address those challenges, in cooperation with the social partners. It also needed to give genuine consideration to how to deal with the individual situations of foreign workers who had been injured, who were in a desperate situation, and who were denied access to social security benefits. Such situations also occurred in many other countries, and not only Malaysia, but the individuals concerned needed consideration. The issues surrounding the case had been raised many times by the ILO supervisory bodies, and the Committee would have to be realistic in recognizing that changes would not be immediate. While the commitment of the Government had been heard before, the new Government had given a firm undertaking to achieve progress. Between the obligations out of the commitments under the CPTPP and the Convention, the only way for the Government was to go forward.

The Worker members emphasized that the Committee had abundantly discussed the long-standing and persistent issue at previous sessions, including last year, and had consistently urged the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. They welcomed the answers provided by the Government, which had been conveyed in a positive and constructive manner. However, despite benefiting from ILO technical assistance on the subject in 2016, the Government had taken no concrete steps to address the situation and ensure equal treatment for migrant workers and national workers with respect to workplace injury compensation. The required measures to remedy the situation were quite simple and involved the re-introduction of all migrant workers in the ESS, so as to guarantee equal treatment between migrant workers and national workers in relation to accident compensation. Their reintegration under the ESS would be in accordance with the principles of the Convention, and it had been recommended by the ILO technical team in 2016 as the most effective solution. Recalling that urgent action was required on the issue, they called on the Government to show its commitment to giving full effect to the Convention by taking immediate and effective measures to meet the requirement of the Convention for equal treatment of migrant workers and national workers with respect to workplace accident compensation. In view of the persistence of the situation, while welcoming the positive approach, the Worker members urged the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to assess progress before the next International Labour Conference. They thanked the Government for the response and hoped that the situation would evolve positively in the coming years.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee welcomed the Government’s stated commitment to ensuring the Convention’s requirement for equal treatment of migrant workers and national workers.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions, the discussion of the case that followed, and the 2017 conclusions of the Committee, the Committee urged the Government to:

- take steps to develop and communicate its policy for governing the recruitment and treatment of migrant workers;

- take immediate steps to conclude its work on the means for reinstating the equality of treatment of migrant workers, in particular by extending the coverage of the Employees’ Social Security Scheme to migrant workers in a form that is effective;

- engage in genuine consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations to develop laws and regulations that ensure the removal of discriminatory practices between migrant and national workers, in particular in relation to workplace injury;

- adopt special arrangements with other ratifying member States to overcome the administrative difficulties of monitoring the payment of compensation abroad; and

- take necessary legal and practical measures to ensure that migrant workers have access to medical care in the case of workplace injury.

The Committee called upon the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission with a view to implementing these recommendations and to develop mechanisms for overcoming the practical issues affecting the implementation of the domestic social security scheme to migrant workers.