Voting rights to migrant workers
View(s):When discussing labour migration or Sri Lanka’s migrant workers (as they are often referred to), one name that springs up, as a dedicated supporter of the rights of these workers, is David Soysa. It was Soysa, a retired labour department officer, in the late 1990s who fashioned a stream of social groups (later transformed to NGOs) fighting for the rights of migrant workers (MWs). He died a few years ago, unfortunately not be able to see his pet project – voting rights for MWs – to fruition. His persistence on this issue with regular letters, requests and appeals to various authorities and the Human Rights Commission (HRC), led to the HRC chaired by Faiz Musthapa endorsing such a recommendation to the government, 15 years ago in October 2001.
“Yes, we have agreed to make a recommendation to the government on the right of migrant workers to vote,” Faiz Musthapa, HRC chairman told a Business Times reporter at the time. He had said the commission would recommend amending the election law and also suggest ways on how migrant workers could vote. Adding: “We are in the process of doing this. This would apply to migrant workers only, not those who reside abroad.” The same recommendation was sent to the Foreign Ministry. That was it. Nothing moved after that and despite, Soysa’s persistent efforts to convince the HRC that more than 1.5 million migrant workers overseas must get their right to vote, that yet-to-be implemented recommendation lies in an HRC file; one of the delays being the mechanism (overseas) through which MWs can exercise their right.
Voting has many advantages and benefits for MWs and their families. Consider the power a voting base of a near 3 million people (1.5 million MWs x 2 – at-home-spouse) would have on the political environment? This group would have a much bigger political impact than plantation workers which is so far considered the largest, single base of around 500,0000 votes. MWs have strong yet-to-be-channelled political power. If they are granted voting rights and an effective mechanism found to conduct voting overseas or through a mobile technology (examine other examples in force by other labour-providing countries like the Philippines and Indonesia where MWs vote through embassies), politicians will fall over each other to canvass for their rights with BMW car-type benefits and other perks.
All this, for the sake of winning a seat in parliament, provincial council or local authority, and then, as the case has been proven over and over again, forget them till the next election comes around. This right to vote would strengthen migrant workers support groups and trade unions working on their behalf and ensure politicians and governments won’t be able to get away with making promises only. Unlike plantation workers who are under the grip of plantation unions and don’t have the ability to independently fight for their rights, MWs also have a strong collective of supporters through village community groups. Thus a Parliamentary Select Committee appointed last week to examine the possibility of providing voting rights to 1.5 million MWs is a welcome move with a solution not far away.
The HRC should be able to provide all the legal remedies and mechanisms suggested at the time to make this work, based on its recommendations in 2001. The committee was appointed based on a motion presented to parliament by 21 MPS. It said that “Sri Lankans employed overseas have been deprived the chance to vote until now even though they make an invaluable contribution for the sustenance of the economy of Sri Lanka at present through the earning of foreign exchange”. This is one of the few occasions where MWs have been given parliamentary and presidential importance. During former President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s 1994-2004 tenure, a presidential task force made a number of recommendations on labour migration including dealing with the social dimension which has led to family break-downs, suicides, incest and lack of parental care for children.
A National Labour Migration Policy for Sri Lanka was approved by the cabinet in April 2009 but no one knows its effectiveness as there hasn’t been any proper follow-up on its proposals and recommendations. Over the years governments have woken up or gone to sleep over issues confronting MWs with one exception: the minister in charge of the subject and the government of the day getting up in parliament during the budget debate to ‘delve’ deep into the subject and praise the foreign earnings from these ‘brave Sri Lankan women”. That’s all. For the rest of the year, it is not on the list of priorities until woken up through some connected issue. The rights of these workers are far beyond their earning capacity and that’s not the only reason why Sri Lankans should be overjoyed.
Labour migration is another form of alleviating poverty and lack of employment in the village. In recent times, the government has been pushing for more professional and skilled migration discouraging women from going abroad as housemaids. Such a policy is discriminatory. It’s the woman in the house that often faces discrimination as the man is considered the traditional breadwinner and the woman the housekeeper and binding the family unit, even though in modern society, both play (or should have ) equal roles. Though, many women face serious problems overseas, restricting their freedom to work abroad as a domestic worker is not only unconstitutional but also discriminatory. Women have the right to make an informed choice based on the information they have; not what is forced down. Often regulations imposed by the state on MWs is a ‘blind-leading-the-blind’ or ‘cart-before-the-horse’ approach, jumping blindly into regulation without consultation and study from all stakeholders.
This is the same case in policy-making strategies and pronouncements in this sector. Consider two diametrically opposite views expressed by two members of the same government: Sarath Amunugama (Senior Minister) and Hemachandra Nanayakkara (Southern Province Governor) last week. Speaking at the launch of the second phase of a Cinnamon Training Academy at Kosgoda last week, Amunugama said female migrant workers were a valuable part of foreign exchange earnings. Soon after he left, Nanayakkara said this was a slave trade that should never happen! While both views are factually correct, the two contrasting views exemplify the lack of a clear state policy pertaining to labour migration. The absence of a proper strategy has eluded this sector for many years. Let’s not lose that opportunity once again, now that the trustees (parliamentarians) of the people have been assigned an important task of providing voting rights to migrant workers.