Sg Siput member of parliament Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj argues that the amendments to the Employment Act 1955, passed by the parliament, is regressive and a race to the bottom. He voiced as follows during the debate in the parliament.
Mr Chair, I feel sad and disappointed listening to the Barisan Nasional parliamentarians’ arguments. It looks like other than the MPs for Rembau and Kapit, the parliamentarians have failed to understand the problems faced by the contract workers in Malaysia.
Please allow me to cite an example from my area. A cement factory, APMC, which is now known as Lafarge, had given out “house keeping” as a third party contract 12 years ago. The workers in this division were then given a choice- either quit and subsequently receive compensation as stated in the law or opt to work for another contractor who would take over the “house keeping” job. Almost all the workers had opted to remain employed under contractor “A”. The problem arose 3 years later when it was time to renew the contract. Contractor “A” claimed that there was a new contractor who had quoted a lower price than him for the same job. Hence, he then gave a choice to his employees- either receive a decrease in their salaries or lose their jobs. The workers were obviously forced to receive a decrease in their salaries. This same scenario has repetitively occurred every year. Now, after 12 years, the salary of the “house keeping” workers has decreased from RM 32 per day to RM 22 per day.
This is just one of the many problems faced by contract workers. They face a decrease in pay from time to time and without any job security. The workers have also lost their union memberships in the Nonmetallic Union. And now, if a worker were to be fired, would a non-millionaire contractor be able to pay them any compensation for termination?
This is why I am disappointed with the response from the Ministry of Human Resources. The ministry says that the amendment to the law was made in favour of protecting our workers. If it truly is in the favour of the workers’ interest, I would support this amendment but it is not enough! We only want to register the contractors and make it compulsory for them to have a list of their workers. Why not enforce Section 33? Right now, according to Section 33 (1)(b) the principal employer is responsible for the monthly salary of the contract workers. However, it is not compulsory for this principal employer to pay EPF or SOCSO or termination benefits in the event the contractor were to run away without settling this payment.
Alternatively the Ministry of Human of Resources can amend the law to make it illegal to use it for continuous employment. Contract works are only allowed for seasonal or temporary in nature. However, the government has failed to do this. It made only a weak amendment that cannot control the issues of contracting out.
Mr Speaker, our workers face two major problems. One is the influx of foreign labour the other is the extensive system of contracting out jobs. Now we are amending the law, but we are not using the opportunity to provide a better protection for the workers.
Mr Speaker, the problem is Malaysia is involved in a race to the bottom. If I may say, we are competing with Vietnam and Indonesia to attract foreign investment. Thus we are willing to lower our standards of protection for our workers. We are willing to sacrifice the well being of our workers. This is the cause of “Mat Rempit” and young Indian gangsters, our marginalized youth.
This is why I am disappointed. I would like to ask the Minister to postpone the Amendment of the Act and refer it to a Select Committee for input and ideas. If you need help, we can help you in this.
