Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2017, Publication : 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 19) sur l'égalité de traitement (accidents du travail), 1925 - Malaisie - Sarawak (Ratification: 1964)



A Government representative recalled that, currently, foreign workers were covered under the Workers’ Compensation Scheme (WCS) regulated by the Workmen’s Compensation Act (WCA) of 1952. The WCS was aimed at providing compensation for work injuries involving temporary disability, total and permanent disability, as well as occupational diseases to foreign workers during working hours. In the event of death, the compensation would be extended to the dependants. A constant attendance allowance was also payable to insured foreign workers who had succumbed to total and permanent disability. Further, ex-gratia payment for fatal accidents was also provided under the WCS during working and outside of working hours. The reason of introducing such ex-gratia payment was to provide additional monetary benefits to foreign workers as well as to their dependants. Over the years, Malaysia had taken proactive efforts to strengthen WCS. In this regard, few internal studies and a series of discussions with relevant agencies had been carried out in order to enhance the benefits provided under the WCS. This was time-consuming as it involved extensive deliberations on national laws, present policies and the economic situation. Insurance panellists appointed under the WCS had been tasked by the Government to revise the current compensation package in terms of quantum and premium chargeable, and suggested several proposals in this respect. The proposals aimed at enhancing the level of compensation submitted to the Ministry of Human Resources for further analysis, and an internal task force was formed to further review those proposals. Upon careful review, the Ministry concluded that the majority of the insurance panellists agreed with the quantum increase on work-related injuries compensation involving temporary, total and permanent disability, deaths and occupational diseases suffered by foreign workers. The Government had also engaged a technical consultation with the ILO Senior Specialist on Social Protection from the Decent Work Technical Support Team in 2016 to seek guidance in improving the social protection of foreign workers, particularly looking into WCS. Foreign workers needed to be covered for both employment and non-employment injuries. No foreign worker should be deprived of such rights. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of every State to protect foreign workers’ rights and prevent all forms of discrimination. In this regard, the speaker concluded by observing that Malaysia would comply with the call of the Committee in ensuring the foreign worker’s accident compensation guaranteed by the Convention and that the Ministry will hold discussions on the WCS with the social partners for their further consideration on the revised quantum prior to submitting to the Government for approval. The speaker concluded by indicating that such efforts could help the Government to implement the Convention in a fair manner.

The Worker members indicated that the Committee had discussed the application of the Convention in Malaysia on numerous occasions, most recently in 2011, recommending that the Government should consider inviting a high-level advisory mission of the ILO and avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office. A technical consultation was held in 2016 in order to discuss options to address the persistent situation so as to guarantee equal treatment to migrant workers who suffer personal injury due to industrial accidents, or in case of death – to their dependants. There were more than 2 million registered migrant workers and more than 1 million unregistered migrant workers, mostly from Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh. Migrant workers constituted around 20–30 per cent of the Malaysian labour force. The demand for migrant labour in Malaysia was increasing steadily. In 2016, Malaysia signed a Memorandum of Understanding to bring 1.5 million Bangladeshi workers into the country. Migrant workers were concentrated in the agricultural sector (70 per cent of the workforce), the construction sector (45 per cent) and the manufacturing sector (30 per cent). Official data from the Department of Occupational Safety and Health compiled in 2014 demonstrated that these were also the sectors with the highest incidences of workplace accidents. The Embassy of Nepal provided records showing that its workers died at a rate of nine per week in Malaysia during the second half of 2014. Given that the official figures only took into account investigated accidents, it was estimated that the real number was even higher. The types of work migrants are usually engaged in were hazardous and, due to the lack of protective equipment and unequal treatment, the risk of accidents was aggravated. While the demand for migrant labour had been increasing, the reverse was true in terms of the protection provided for these workers. Since 1993, the transfer of migrant workers to the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme had put them at a serious disadvantage as the Employees’ Social Security (ESS) Scheme offered a higher level of protection. Under the ESS Scheme, a permanently injured worker was entitled to a periodical cash benefit of 90 per cent of the “assumed average daily wage”, whereas under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the permanently injured worker was entitled to a lump-sum payment of only 62 months’ salary or 23,000 ringgits (around €4,800), whichever was less. In the case of an injury, Malaysian workers were entitled to free treatment at any government hospital or clinic and the medical bill was settled by the social security fund. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme, the employers of migrant workers were required to pay for the workers’ medical expenses. This exposed migrant workers to possible abuse, if employers did not pay for the required treatment. Migrant workers could only claim refunds for medical costs after they had fully recovered and even then, it took several months for them to be refunded leaving them with no means of survival in the meantime. Undocumented migrant workers had no guarantees of safety from arrest while attempting to access medical treatment in the case of workplace accidents. In addition, a Malaysian injured worker who had been certified as unfit for work for at least four days was entitled to temporary disablement benefit equivalent to 80 per cent of his/her wages. Migrant workers suffering temporary disablement were only entitled to half-monthly payments of a third of their monthly wages. National laws establishing a differing treatment between foreigners and nationals are not consistent with the Convention. Ratifying States undertook to adopt special arrangements in relation to payments they would have to make abroad and the Government had provided no information on what special arrangements it had undertaken with other member States in relation to the payment of accident compensation for returning migrants. The Government had confirmed that it had been signing memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with eight countries of origin (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam) in order to regulate the recruitment of foreign workers. However, to the knowledge of the Worker members, none of these agreements addressed the equal treatment of migrants or social protection. Discriminatory treatment in relation to accident compensation was not the only area where the Government has failed to recognize the massive contribution of migrant workers to the country’s economic performance. Migrant workers were subject to multiple forms of discrimination and inequalities. The Industrial Court had ruled that migrant workers working under a fixed-term contract could not benefit from the conditions agreed in collective agreements. Migrant domestic workers were in an even worse situation. Though critical to filling the increasing demand for household and caregiving services, domestic workers were excluded from the most basic labour protections, including social security coverage. Malaysia had benefited greatly from the employment of migrant workers in several economically important sectors. During the last two decades, those workers had helped to provide the labour that had fuelled the country’s emergence into an upper middle-income country. However, the Government had failed to protect the rights of migrant workers and to treat them equally, specifically in relation to accident compensation. The Government was therefore clearly not fully respecting its obligation under the Convention.

The Employer members recalled that this case dated back to 1993, when foreign workers employed in Malaysia for up to five years had been transferred from the ESS Scheme to the WCS. Ever since, benefits provided under the WCS had been lower than those provided under the ESS Scheme and there had therefore been a clear divergence with the provisions of the Convention which established the principle of equality of treatment between foreign workers and national workers without conditions of residence. Importantly, the Convention required foreign workers to be treated in the same way as national workers and not the other way around. Since 1996, the Committee on the Application of Standards had been continuously requesting that foreign workers be transferred back to the ESS Scheme. The Government had indicated in 2011 that it was considering various options within a technical committee of the Ministry of Human Resources with the involvement of all stakeholders. In its last report, the Government had indicated its intention to extend the coverage of the ESS Scheme to documented foreign workers subject to certain modifications aimed at ensuring administrative practicability of the new arrangements. In 2016, the Government had contacts with ILO social security specialists to evaluate the conformity of the modified scheme with the Convention. Extending the ESS Scheme to foreigners would require overcoming difficulties, notably with respect to the difficulties that led to the introduction of separate treatment between foreign workers and national workers. Referring to the 24 month contributory period for access to employment injury benefits under the ESS Scheme, which does not exist under the WCS, the Employer members observed that foreign workers were not suited for the ESS Scheme since they had generally been contracted for up to two years, in other words less than the qualifying period.

Taking into account the large number of migrant workers concerned and the high incidence of accidents experienced by this group, three main factors needed to be reconciled with a view to achieving the objective of equity. Firstly, the administrative and practical difficulties to ensuring equality of treatment were related to the fact that migrant workers were generally undertaking project work for less than two years and were being repatriated if they had become incapacitated following an industrial accident, which had made compensation an administrative and logistical challenge. Secondly, the question of whether the Convention provided for absolute equality needed to be answered in the light of the requirement of the Convention that migrant workers must receive the same treatment as national workers or whether treatment of equal value would also be acceptable under the terms of the Convention. Finally, there was a need to also determine the actuarial equivalence of the lump sum paid under the WCS to migrant workers and the value of the periodical payments granted under the ESS Scheme to Malaysian workers. The comparison between the value of periodic benefits and that of lump-sum payments was a particularly technical and delicate question. Depending on the answer, the WCS could have been viewed as a suitable and practicable solution for managing employment injury and invalidity benefits for foreign workers in Malaysia; if necessary with certain adjustments to the value of the lump-sum payments. If absolute equality was required, then means must be found to make it operational under separate levels of jurisdiction of the Malaysian Federation. Such problems were faced by other federal States and a lasting solution required taking into account the practicalities mentioned above. The Employer members concluded by requesting the Government to indicate the reasons for which the actuarial equivalence of the lump sum paid under the WCS to migrant workers with the periodical payments granted under the ESS Scheme to Malaysian workers had not been robustly established by the Government since it had been requested three years ago; how compensation had been paid and what compensation had been paid, in the event of an occupational accident or disease of migrant workers; the enforcement and administrative constraints regarding in particular the remittance of payment of accident compensation benefits to the next of kin or dependants of migrant workers in their country of residence; progress made towards reconciling the different treatment of workers covered by the ESS Scheme and foreign workers covered by the WCS; the future plans to align the treatment of foreign workers with that of Malaysian nationals in the event of accidents; and complementary information as to any special arrangements concluded with countries of origin in this respect.

The Employer member of Malaysia pointed out that the previous recommendations made by the Committee could not be implemented as quickly as expected. The Malaysian Employers Federation believed that the Government’s decision to place foreign workers under the WCA in 1993 was based on valid and practical reasons. Firstly, he explained, foreign workers were contracted to work in Malaysia for an initial period of two years, with a possible extension of up to five years. If such workers were placed under the Social Security Act, they would be required to make contributions for a minimum period of 24 months before they could be eligible for payment under the invalidity pension scheme; whereas under the WCA, such workers were eligible for compensation from the day of commencement of employment, without having to make any contributions. Secondly, under the WCA, the premiums for the insurance were fully paid by the employer and foreign workers were not required to make any payment for insurance coverage. This was not the case under the Social Security Act, under which employers and employees were required to make monthly contributions to the Scheme. Thirdly, when foreign workers were contracted to work in Malaysia and in the event that such workers suffered workplace injury or were declared invalid, periodical payments would need to be remitted on a monthly basis to the country of origin, which would pose an administrative burden on the administrator. Under the WCA, a lump sum was paid, which was also more practical for foreign workers. He concluded by requesting the Committee to look at the practical aspects of insurance coverage for foreign workers so that, ultimately, it was in the interest and for the benefit of the foreign workers themselves.

The Worker member of Malaysia stated that the Malaysian Trade Union Congress considered that migrant workers in Malaysia should be transferred from the WCS back to the ESS Scheme, as per the Government’s promise in 2011. The ILO Review of Labour Migration Policy in Malaysia in 2016 had noted the Government’s indication that it would consult with the relevant stakeholders regarding three options for providing accident compensation to migrant workers. However, no steps were taken to that end. Migrant workers in Malaysia were often employed in dangerous jobs without sufficient protective equipment or training. A high incidence of workplace accidents had been documented, with the largest number of injuries and deaths at work occurring in the manufacturing, construction and agricultural sectors, all of which were major sectors of employment for migrant workers. It must be noted, however, that under the 11th Malaysia Plan (2016–20), the Government intended to develop and implement a comprehensive immigration and employment policy for migrant workers, with the Ministry of Human Resources assuming the lead role in policy-making. The Government’s engagement with the various stakeholders, including the ILO, was also appreciated. Nevertheless a mere increase in the amount of compensation paid to foreign workers for work-related injuries involving temporary or total and permanent disability, death and occupational diseases would not suffice to place migrant workers on an equal footing with workers under the ESS Scheme. In 2016, a total of 483 complaints of denial of access to medical treatment, uncompensated accidents, hazardous work places, deaths, poor living conditions, deprivation of food, difficulty in seeking health care and long working hours had been reported and investigated by the authorities. It was believed, however, that many cases went unreported by employers to avoid legal and financial liability, in particular, if irregular workers were involved. He called on the Government to take immediate steps to develop and implement a comprehensive Foreign Employment Policy with realistic and workable occupational safety and health provisions. The Policy must regulate recruitment through the ESS Scheme, thereby ensuring that all migrant workers had a legitimate employer, and knew who their employer was, which would assist the Government to document all migrant workers. The policy should also be in compliance with the ILO Fair Migration Agenda and must ensure that in cases of accidents and deaths, the victims or the next of kin received adequate compensation, as provided under the ESS Scheme. These cases must be published and made publicly available to create awareness. In addition, the policy must be consistent with the provisions of the ESS Scheme to ensure the migrant worker’s right to paid medical leave and other rights not enjoyed by migrant workers under the WCS. It must put in place a process which would prevent employers from making deductions the wages to reclaim the cost of medical treatment and impose a duty on the employer to report an accident or fatality at the workplace immediately so as to engage the employer’s liability and pay the compensation to the migrant worker or his or her family in accordance with the ESS Scheme. Employers who terminated work permits of migrant workers on prolonged sick leave must be reprimanded and obliged to reinstate the work permits so as to ensure that the worker concerned could proceed with the litigation for compensation and enforce the liability of the employer. Finally, the policy must incorporate training of migrant workers on their rights, access to justice, and safety and health. The speaker concluded by stating that the Government should avail itself of ILO technical assistance, and accept an ILO Direct Contacts Mission to meet the Government’s objective to develop a comprehensive immigration and employment policy for migrant workers and to put it into immediate effect.

The Government member of Malta speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), as well as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Norway and Georgia, welcomed the initialling in 2016 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the EU and the Government. The PCA further strengthened the bilateral cooperation and encompassed a wide range of areas, including sectorial cooperation on labour and employment. Both parties had signalled that they wished to sign the PCA by the end of 2017. Foreign workers provided much needed skills and made invaluable contributions to Malaysia’s social and economic development. They 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 or unequal treatment, and to increased risks of accidents and health problems. The speaker expressed deep concerns regarding the discriminatory treatment of foreign workers that were not receiving equal treatment as compared with national workers in respect of employment injuries compensation. This long-standing issue persisted since 1993, despite the recurrent calls from the Committee to put an end to this practice. In its last report, the Government had expressed its willingness to extend the social security scheme applicable for national workers to foreign workers. The Government had also held consultations with the Office with a view to initiating internal discussions on the way forward. It was hoped that as a follow-up to these consultations, the Government would take the necessary measures in order to put an end to this discriminatory practice and ensure equal treatment of foreign workers with regard to accident compensation. The EU was available to provide further assistance in that area in the context of the recent meeting between the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Committee on the Implementation of the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers (ACMW), in which representatives of the Government had participated actively. The EU remained committed to constructive engagement and partnership with the Government.

The Government member of Thailand speaking on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), indicated that the Government had made efforts to address the issues pertaining to the application of the Convention and encouraged the Government to expedite the conclusion of internal studies and the discussions with relevant national agencies. The Government had engaged with the ILO technical specialists to assist in improving the social protection of foreign workers under the WCS. The speaker supported the positive actions taken by the Government, in particular with regard to engaging with the insurance panellists appointed under the WCS to revise and improve the accident compensation scheme. The Committee should consider the foregoing significant efforts of the Government and the progress already achieved.

The Worker member of Singapore recalled that work injury or accident compensation was an important safeguard for workers to make claims for work-related injuries or diseases, without the need for costly legal action. It was often a quick and effective way to provide social security and protection to workers in times of need. It was thus regrettable that this fundamental protection was subject to discriminatory practices. Despite numerous examinations by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, there had been no practical response from the Government in addressing the disparities between nationals and foreign workers since 1993. As of September 2016, there were 1.85 million foreigners with valid Temporary Employment Passes in the country. The majority of foreign workers came from Indonesia (close to 750,000 workers), followed by Nepal (410,000 workers), Bangladesh (238,000 workers), Myanmar (140,000 workers), India (121,430 workers) and others (194,000 workers). These numbers did not include the vast number of unregistered foreign workers. Most foreign workers were employed in places with high accident risks, such as construction, manufacturing and plantations. She recalled that the Committee of Experts had previously concluded that the Government had “undermined the system of automatic reciprocity in granting equality of treatment to nationals of ratifying States” and that parties to the Convention must implement the principle of equal treatment in respect of workmen’s compensation between their own nationals and foreign workers. According to the 2015 World Bank’s report, Malaysia had the fourth largest number of migrants and the seventh highest ratio of migrants to total population in East Asia and the Pacific. Immigrant labour played a crucial role in Malaysia’s development towards the Government’s articulated Vision 2020. As nationals had become more educated, immigrant labour helped to fill in the gaps in the low- and mid-skilled jobs, which represented three quarters of all jobs in Malaysia. She called on the Government to consider the humane aspect of the issue as injured foreign workers may be unable to work when they were repatriated to their home countries, and many were the sole breadwinners in their respective families. The Government needed to recognize that these workers contributed directly to the country’s economic growth and thus should be treated without discrimination. She called upon the Government to urgently resolve the differences between the ESS Scheme for nationals and the WCS for foreign workers so as to ensure equitable and adequate protection for every worker.

The Worker member of Australia drew attention to the situation of Nepalese migrant workers working in Malaysia, who were subject to lower accident compensation protection compared to Malaysian workers. Since 1993, only Malaysian citizens and permanent residents were eligible to contribute to the social security system and benefit from financial assistance in the event of an industrial accident. Nepalese migrant workers were only eligible for coverage under the WCA for employment injury compensation. Many employers of Nepalese workers however made no contribution under this scheme. Moreover, the protection offered under the WCA was much lower than that available to Malaysian workers. For example, the claim process under the WCA was complex and a health assessment of the injured worker could take over three months. Under the claims process, an employer could also reclaim expenses incurred for an injured worker’s treatment. The fact that most Nepalese workers worked long hours in dangerous occupations in plantations, factories and the mining industry without safety equipment also increased the risk of injury, which in turn amplified the effect of the discrimination. In the case of undocumented workers, no accident compensation was provided under any scheme. Moreover, there were no guarantees of safety from arrest while attempting to access medical treatment for undocumented workers, which had a chilling effect on reporting injuries. It was common practice to repatriate injured workers back to Nepal. The Nepalese embassy reported that, in the last three years, the number of workplace fatalities of Nepalese workers in Malaysia had been 348 in 2014, 461 in 2015 and 386 in 2016, i.e. an average of nine deaths per week. In most cases, the official cause of death was cardiac arrest and no post-mortem examination was carried out. The breaches of the Convention had persisted for many years and the ILO had offered technical assistance to the Malaysian Government for a number of years. He urged the Committee to make strong recommendations which would increase the degree of ILO supervision to continue the engagement of the Government and the technical assistance involving all stakeholders. This should ensure further and urgent steps to strengthen compliance with this Convention to secure equal treatment for Malaysian and foreign workers with regard to accident compensation.

The Worker member of Indonesia emphasized that Malaysia had benefited greatly from the employment of migrant workers in several economically important sectors, while migrant workers had not received fair treatment. Particularly, in respect of the employment injury compensation, migrant workers were provided with a lump sum under the WCS rather than a periodical payment under the social security system. Moreover, this protection did not extend to domestic workers. As a result, they were not provided with any guarantee of compensation in the event of workplace-related injury. In 2006, Malaysia and Indonesia signed an MoU on the employment of domestic workers. However, existing gaps allowed widespread abuse by employers. Due to the high number of complaints received, Indonesia suspended the deployment of domestic workers to Malaysia in 2009, pending a revised agreement. Referring to the case of a Filipino domestic worker who was denied access to proper medical assistance when injured, the speaker stated that the Government had failed its obligation under the Convention regarding the provision of basic labour protection to migrant workers. In this regard, comprehensive measures were needed along with the extension of social protection.

The Government representative reaffirmed that managing the welfare of foreign workers had always been a priority to the Government, as evidenced by the 11th Malaysia Plan (2016–20). In order to achieve the aspirations laid out in that Plan, the Government had undertaken numerous initiatives, including a review of labour laws and regulations, the introduction of the employers’ responsibility for workers from their arrival until their return to their countries of origin and the introduction of a guideline on foreign workers’ accommodation with basic amenities. The contributions to the WCS were payable only by employers and covered compensation for accidents that occurred not only during working hours but also outside of working hours. In addition, the scheme did not impose any qualifying period to receive the compensation. Thus, foreign workers received the compensation immediately after the incident had taken place. Contribution to the WCS was one of the pre-conditions to be authorized to hire foreign workers. In relation to the statement made on procedural elements pertaining to paid sick leave, reporting of accidents, payment of compensation, and the importance of the safety and health of workers, these elements were already embedded under existing labour laws and regulations. The Government made progressive efforts in order to enhance the benefits available under the WCS. The Government had engaged with insurance panellists to revise the quantum and the benefits of the WCS and would conduct further deliberation with the social partners in due course. He pledged the full and undivided commitment of the Government to the efforts that lied ahead, to ensure that the WCS would be in conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

The Worker members noting the information provided by the Government representative, considered that there remained no doubt that national laws and practices were completely out of line with the Convention and that migrant workers suffered unequal treatment with respect to employment injury protection. This was not a recent problem. However, with the growing number of migrant workers, the consequences of this discriminatory behaviour were escalating. The WCS was less favourable than the ESS Scheme with respect to the duration, level and types of benefits workers received in the case of workplace injury. The Committee on the Application of Standards had recommended on several occasions that the Government take the necessary steps in order to bring its legislation in line with the Convention and had benefited from ILO technical assistance on this matter. The Worker members expressed the hope that the discussion would finally make a difference in ensuring that the Government took urgent steps to remedy the key areas of concerns, in consultation with the country’s social partners. Migrant workers were to be reintegrated in the ESS Scheme and were entitled to the same level of accident compensation as Malaysian nationals. Moreover, the Government needed to make sure that special arrangements with other ratifying States where migrant workers come from were negotiated so that migrant workers could benefit from the same level of protection after they return to their country of origin. The necessary measures needed to be taken in order to ensure that undocumented migrant workers did not have to fear arrest and retaliation when they seek medical assistance following workplace accidents. Discrimination in relation to accident compensation was sadly not the only area where migrant workers lacked protection. Even though, a substantive part of the labour force was constituted of migrant workers, Malaysia had failed in providing workers with the necessary protections of their fundamental rights guaranteed under ILO standards. The Worker members expressed the sincere hope that there would be a change of attitude in relation to this category of workers, especially if the Government continued recruiting more migrant workers.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the efforts made in overcoming the difficulties faced in the implementation of the Convention. Equality of treatment was required by the Convention. At the same time, strict equality of treatment should not result in dismantling the protection currently enjoyed by migrant workers under the WCS by subjecting them to qualifying conditions required by the ESS Scheme. Practical solutions were therefore to be explored and the Government needed to provide more information in this respect and a clear statement as to the current development policy for the employment of migrant workers. The Employer members concluded by referring to the Government’s indication that it would hold tripartite consultations on these issues in due course, urging it to undertake these consultations soon.

Conclusions

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

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee called upon the Government of Malaysia to take immediate, pragmatic and effective steps to ensure that the Convention’s requirement for equal treatment of migrant workers and national workers is met.

The Committee nevertheless called upon the Government to expedite its efforts to address this long-standing issue, as the need for real progress is becoming increasingly urgent. Specifically, the Committee calls upon the Government of Malaysia to, without delay:

- 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 means of 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;

- work 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;

- take necessary legal and practical measures to ensure that migrant workers have access to medical care in the case of workplace injury without fear of arrest and retaliation;

- avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO with a view to implementing these recommendations and to develop mechanisms for overcoming the practical issues affecting implementation of the domestic social security scheme to migrant workers.