The long shadow of forced labour

INVESTMENT, Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani has argued that Malaysia does not practise forced labour and has laws in place to prevent it.

He also clarified that the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) proposed 10% duty under Section 301 is linked not to activities within Malaysia, but to concerns that raw materials and semi-finished goods sourced from third countries may have been produced using forced labour before being processed here and exported to the United States.

It is no longer enough for a country to ensure its own factories comply with labour laws. Increasingly, major markets are scrutinising entire supply chains, from the source of raw materials to the final product.

But while Malaysia may not be responsible for labour abuses in other countries, the issue should not be viewed solely as an external problem.

The uncomfortable reality is that concerns over labour standards have followed Malaysia for years.

Cases involving migrant worker recruitment practices, debt bondage, excessive overtime and weak enforcement have periodically drawn international attention and led to import restrictions against some Malaysian companies.

Although improvements have been made, those episodes have left a lasting impression on trading partners.

This is why the current debate is about more than forced labour. It is about governance.

Why has Malaysia left its workers so exposed that others can weaponise their suffering? Whether the United States is motivated by genuine concern, strategic interests or a combination of both is beside the point.

The more important question is why Malaysia allowed labour governance issues to become a vulnerability in the first place.

What we are seeing today is how governance failures can turn into geopolitical and economic risks.

Weak labour oversight no longer affects only workers. It can influence trade negotiations, market access, investment flows and the competitiveness of Malaysian exports.

This also raises another question: whatever happened to Malaysia’s National Action Plan on Forced Labour?

The initiative was supposed to strengthen labour governance, improve coordination among agencies and address long-standing structural weaknesses.

At a time when labour standards are increasingly shaping trade policy, there should be greater urgency and transparency surrounding its implementation.

Johari is right that supply-chain scrutiny is becoming more complex. But Malaysia’s response should not be limited to convincing others that it does not have forced labour.

It must also demonstrate that its governance systems are robust enough to identify and manage risks throughout the supply chain.

In today’s trading environment, labour standards are no longer just a social issue. They are a trade issue, an investment issue and increasingly, a geopolitical issue.

The cost of getting them wrong is no longer measured only in reputational damage, but in lost economic opportunities.