More questions raised over third-party company

PETALING JAYA: Third parties are not needed to protect the welfare of foreign workers as the concept may be open to abuse, say employers’ groups.

They questioned why a Nepal government agency had enlisted a private Malaysian company to protect the welfare of its workers here.

This comes after The Star reported on Jan 11 that a Malaysian firm had entered into an agreement with an official of the Foreign Employment Board of Nepal to provide “protection and welfare” services for Nepali migrant workers in Malaysia for a fee of US$45 (RM200) per worker.

Security Industry Association of Malaysia Selangor chapter chairman Datuk Dr S. Prabakaran said there was no need for a third party to carry out such services.

“A third party should not be involved as we are paying the Employment Insurance System (EIS) to the Social Security Organisation (Socso) for all Nepali security guards and they are covered by insurance,” he said when contacted.

National Association of Human Resources Malaysia president Zarina Ismail shared her view.

She said the annual insurance scheme for foreign workers and the Socso contribution would be sufficient to ensure the welfare of migrant workers.

“Employers have played their role in ensuring the welfare of their workers; why would there be a need to pay an extra fee?

“In terms of tracing (Nepali workers), we have government authorities to do it,” she added.

Zarina said employers have been spending at least RM100 per migrant worker under the insurance scheme and an additional US$45 would be a burden.

“Employers pay this amount of over RM100 annually on top of other fees. If there is another fee, specifically for Nepali workers, it will definitely add a burden to companies,” she added.

National Association of Private Employment Agencies president Datuk Kris Foo Yin Choo said third parties were “absolutely unnecessary” and this would only open up more opportunities for abuse of migrant workers’ rights.

“And neither is there information on what licence this firm is operating under, nor is there any way to determine its qualifications and experience in taking care of the welfare of migrant workers.

“US$45 is a steep amount to pay, especially if migrant workers are expected to pay for it out of their own pockets.

“Even if the workers are not the ones paying it, not only is this an additional charge to employers recruiting them, there is also no way to guarantee that the workers would not be forced by another party to pay for it themselves.

“There is also no guarantee that the money will be put to good use to help the workers.

“There are already unlicensed recruitment agencies and unethical employers not protecting migrant workers’ rights,” she said.

Foo said licensed recruitment agencies and employers should continue to be responsible for the welfare of migrant workers.

Migrant workers’ rights group Our Journey director Sumitha Shaanthinni Kishna said past experiences have shown that workers would be forced to fork out their own money.

“Although it is reported that the employers will pay, experience has taught us that such payments will eventually be shouldered by the workers,” she said.

She added that workers have no bargaining power against their employers as their visa was tied to them.