Out of sight, out of mind? COVID-19 and Sri Lankan migrant workers abroad
In the hysteria that surrounded the discovery of COVID-19 patients in Sri Lanka, the backlash against Sri Lankan migrant workers became highly visible both in the mainstream and social media platforms. This has gathered disturbing momentum in the past few weeks with the discovery of infections among a significant number of returnee migrant workers from Kuwait. While not unique to Sri Lanka, the plight of migrant workers – those working within and outside Sri Lanka – has highlighted deep social divisions and a lack of institutional understanding; especially on how to address the specific concerns that arise from having an estimated 2 million-strong migrant worker population working overseas.
There is no question about the central and critical role migrant workers perform within Sri Lanka’s economy with over US$6.7 billion remitted last year alone (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, December 2019). Remittances accounts for approximately 8 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product and by some accounts cushions over 95 per cent of the trade deficit, according to published research. Even though tourism and apparel sectors continue to be important, the foreign exchange earning power of these industries pale in the face of this significant stock of migrant workers.
But the very nature of their work arrangements – living and working outside of Sri Lanka – as well as their contributions to the economy, appear to make them fall foul of protection measures that the State should extend to all its citizens. The absence of a comprehensive response on how to assist migrant workers during the COVID-19, has once again highlighted the failure of state structures to respond quickly and effectively to protect this group of workers.
What steps have been taken
so far?
A cursory review of the steps taken so far by Sri Lanka show up the ways in which the state structures have failed, rather than supported migrant workers. The launch of a site where overseas Sri Lankans could register was commendable in gathering data. The repercussions of gaps in official data are felt in such emergency situations where support services cannot be well designed nor provided effectively. But it is unclear how many migrant workers indeed registered through the online platform, with accessibility for some segments of migrant workers still a question mark. This is further exacerbated by statements by senior officials that some workers were “illegal migrants” thus implying limits to their deservedness to receive state support. Whereas, most are merely irregular migrant workers, using existing channels to secure work elsewhere and at times, rendered “illegal” because of the lapse in employment contracts or because they failed to “register” with the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE) prior to their departure. That such statements were issued by high level government officials is worrying, as these contribute to misconceptions about all migrant workers.
At the ground level, Sri Lankan embassies have sought to supply rations to migrant workers who are unable to access food. These have been highlighted through the respective Embassy’s Facebook pages but the general complaint is that this measure is limited in scope. Can the staff reach out to different far-flung locations within a destination country? Is there any means of checking on the well-being of domestic workers and men whose accommodation in boarding places may put them at more risk to contract the virus? How are such risk assessments carried out? Shrouded in mystery, this process has led to swift condemnation of state bodies by migrant workers via social media.
Migrant workers have used social media, especially Facebook as a platform to vent their frustration and anger at the lack of transparency on the return process. The priority placed on stranded Sri Lankan “students” in Europe and Australia and welcoming medical or leisure tourists have heightened the class distinctions that appear to underpin the government’s decision in selecting who is allowed to return home.
In the government’s defence, attempting to accommodate the large number of migrant workers who wish to return may overwhelm the health sector as well as available quarantine facilities. This has been reinforced by the most recent “cluster” noted among returnees leading to a questioning of the viability of bringing migrant workers home. But the absence of transparency leads to a festering anger that migrant workers are thus, sidelined.
Implications of Ad-Hoc
government action
The inconsistencies noted in the responses so far, reinforces existing perceptions among migrant workers that the Government and its representative bodies in the destination countries do not treat the workers as Sri Lankan citizens. This is confirmed by the comments of migrant workers to the SLBFE’s announcement on Facebook that registration to work overseas has begun: The accusation is that the SLBFE cares only to “cash in” on the registration fee without extending or activating the social protection schemes that are technically a part of the registration process.
The question of how we failed to respond more effectively to protect migrant workers is an important question to raise, even now, when plans for repatriation are finally taking shape. Sri Lanka prides itself in designing national policies but translating these to action appears to be lackluster. That successive governments have remained mostly reactive rather than proactive towards addressing concerns of migrant workers has been somewhat reinforced in this context as well. For instance, the failure on the part of the State to ensure the safety and security of these workers during an emergency resonates to the times in the past – during the Gulf War, the 2006 war in Lebanon war and most recently in the case of Rizana Nafeek - when such workers have been let down by the government. Asking workers to assess their situation and not to seek help from the Government or labelling them as “illegal” migrants only indicates to the government’s own ill-preparedness.
As Sri Lankan citizens, it is the responsibility and moral obligation of the Government to safeguard the well-being of this considerably large Sri Lankan population. This extension of protection should not hinge on the workers’ ability to demonstrate their worth to Sri Lanka’s economy or on their status as ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ workers. Nor should they be denied protection on the grounds that they are stranded in foreign countries as “illegal” aliens.
In the coming months as the dust settles, the implications of not adequately extending support to migrant workers, particularly those in precarious labour conditions in multiple countries overseas, will become more evident. How far these experiences would go towards the development of a more proactive approach to data gathering, information sharing and transparency on the part of government entities remains to be seen. Until such time, migrant workers may be left to their own devices to live and work under trying conditions and prop-up the Sri Lankan economy by remitting their hard-earned wages home – without due protection, no voting rights and largely remaining as an army of invisible workers.
(Chandima Arambepola is a senior researcher at the Centre
for Poverty Analysis).
| Civil society coalition calls for ‘Urgent Justice Mechanism’ for repatriated migrant workers | |
| A large coalition of civil society organisations and global trade unions on June 1 launched a call for an urgent justice mechanism for repatriated migrant workers as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.Globally, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimates 195 million jobs will be wiped out as a result of the pandemic. In West Asia alone, an estimated 5 million jobs will be lost, many of those jobs are held by migrant workers. Since the start of the pandemic, more than 200,000 migrant workers have been repatriated to Asia from different parts of the world. This number is expected to rise exponentially over the next few months. Countries like India, Nepal, Bangladesh and the Philippines, anticipate the eventual return of a large number of their migrant workers population abroad. The coalition said that without proper controls, employers might take advantage of mass repatriation programmes to terminate and return workers who have not been paid their due compensation, wages and benefits. Millions will be repatriated to situations of debt bondage as they will be forced to pay off recruitment fees and costs, despite returning empty handed. While several Sri Lankan workers have been repatriated, thousands more are awaiting repatriation from West Asia, many who have lost their jobs and/or not received part of their wages. The coalition comprises the Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), the Cross Regional Centre for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM), the Solidarity Centre, the South Asian Regional Trade Union Council (SARTUC) and Lawyers Beyond Borders (LBB). Without ensuring that companies and employers are doing their due diligence to protect and fulfill the human rights and labour rights of repatriated migrant workers, states across the migration corridor become complicit in overseeing procedures where millions of workers will be returning without their earned wages or workplace grievances being heard, nor seeing justice in their situation, it said in a statement. “Extraordinary times, call for extraordinary measures,” said William Gois, Regional Coordinator of Migrant Forum in Asia, “millions will suffer if this crime goes unnoticed. We cannot see this as collateral damage brought by the pandemic”. The coalition said it should be a priority to guarantee that all repatriated workers with legitimate claims are able to access justice and some kind of compensation. The appeal which, civil organisations and trade unions have launched together, calls on governments to urgently establish a transitional justice mechanism to address grievances, claims and labour disputes of repatriated workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic. Many migrant workers have reconciled to the situation of wage theft in the form of unfair or unpaid wages for months and years before the COVID-19 pandemic. They have accepted it as their fate and refrained from complaining lest they lose their jobs, or, worst still, live under the fear of their status being made undocumented. “The pandemic must not stifle our will, our spirit and commitment for justice,” Mr. Gois said. “If we are to ‘Build Back Better’, we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the issue of wage theft that has been persistent across migration corridors for years, and will be unprecedented in the case of repatriated migrant workers in the COVID 19 pandemic,” he added. |