Oped»
Labour pain
AUG 30 -
There is no denying that remittance from Nepali migrant workers has been one of the major sources of income for Nepali households in recent years. It has not only contributed significantly in reducing the level of poverty in the country, but also kept our economy humming in the most difficult circumstances.
But that has not happened because of the government’s deft labour diplomacy for, to a large extent, our labour policy is reactive rather than proactive. The Foreign Employment Act and Regulations enacted two decades ago to cater to the needs of a limited number of migrant workers were still in practice until just a couple of years ago—by that time, the number of migrant workers was in excess of 150,000. The all-around pressure
from stakeholders induced the
government to work on replacing the laws. It is heartening to note that barring a few provisions, these regulations are quite progressive in nature. However, their strict implementation is a distant prospect. The provision of reservation in foreign employment for people from certain segments of societies, for example, has until now served no one in particular.
It seems that the government is in a dilemma between promoting foreign employment and utilising human resources for the nation’s development. The Foreign Employment Promotion Board is a misnomer generating false impression that the government is all set to export its labour force to foreign markets—which, anyway, should not be the case. Recent unpleasant incidences in Libya and Lebanon are proofs of our misguided labour diplomacy. Until recently, the government had banned Iraq as a foreign employment destination. However, more than 30,000 Nepalis were already working there. The same is the case with other Gulf countries. The government had banned Nepali women from working as domestic helps in Gulf countries. But their growing number and the increasing cases of their mistreatment indicate the incapacity of governmental institutions to effectively implement its decisions. The government of Nepal, in collaboration with the concerned Indian authorities, has restricted Nepali migrant workers from travelling to these destinations through Indian airports. Now it is said that our own airport is being used for that purpose without any hindrances.
Our quick response to the US Central Command’s ultimatum to legalise illegal Nepalese migrant workers in Iraq or face their mass expulsion, once again prove the reactive nature of our labour diplomacy. This incidence may encourage other aspiring migrant workers to flout existing rules and regulations in anticipation that, in the future, their presence will be legalised. It shows our incapacity to develop a long-term vision for the foreign employment sector.
Although the total share of remittance is officially around 23 percent of our gross domestic product, the foreign employment sector has yet to receive its due recognition, sans the commitment from high-level political and administrative authorities. Rather than focusing on the needed migrant-labour issues, the Ministry of Labour and Transport Management and its departments, identified as a lucrative governmental office, have been drawing in employees for the wrong reasons. It indicates the prevalence of the culture of impunity and the erosion of values within the system, which is slowly but steadily undermining its legitimacy.
Our overdependence on foreign employment does not augur well for the country’s future. Nepal is heavily dependent on income sources from places where it has no policy control: closure of the Israeli labour market for Nepali workers and reluctance of some Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, to enter into any sort of arrangement to regulate the labour migration process are testimony to this fact. In a situation where even labour pacts are sometimes ineffective in protecting the interests of Nepali migrant workers, to send them without any such safety measures is akin to willingly leaving them at the mercy of their employers, who might not be bound by any labour laws. Moreover, we do not seem to have any alternate plan in case labour-receiving countries refuse to accept Nepali migrant workers.
The institutional rift between the Ministry of Foreign Affaires and the Ministry of Labour and Transport Management, as reported in some newspapers, is yet another impediment to the wellbeing of Nepali migrant workers. It is imperative to resolve all these issues and better coordinate the works of line agencies.
It is but natural that diplomatic missions abroad feel handicapped to address labour issues with their low physical, financial and human resources. The recent appointment of the labour attaches was aimed at addressing this problem. However, policy and legal clarity about the role, function, qualification and authority of the labour attaché need to be sorted out before making any such appointments in the future.
Above all, whether we like it or not, all the concerned stakeholders
should realise that it is the income flowing from these migrant workers that is buttressing the economic in these difficult times.
(Bhattarai is with the Ministry of Labour and Transport Management)
bishal bhattarai bishal2u@hotmail.com
Posted on: 2010-08-31 09:24
Headlines
Advertisements
