Columns

The immediate concern of the country at present is the accumulation of dollars to obtain the bare essentials necessary for the survival of the populace. The purchase of fuel, cooking gas, medicines and a host of other things are dependent on the availability of dollars.

It is natural therefore for the Government to explore every possibility to secure more dollars in the short run to ensure the needs of the people. In pursuance of this objective Government has put in place several measures to realise this need.  

One of these is the decision to permit Public servants to take no pay leave for 5 years in order to obtain foreign employment. This is a salutary step because it serves two purposes.

The first is to achieve the much needed foreign exchange that is likely to be remitted by this category of employees while on the other hand it will reduce, even in a small way, the numbers in a bloated public service that is a burden on the economy.

The dollars from this source may however take a long time in coming given that jobs for this category of employment will be more difficult to come by. However it is a welcome start.

The other step taken in this regard is the reduction of the age applicable for female workers who go abroad for domestic employment. Last week the Government announced that it has decided to amend the Minimum
Age for Migrant Domestic Workers to 21 years.

The Department of Government Information said that the Cabinet of Ministers had granted permission to revise the said age limit, after considering the recommendations of a Cabinet-appointed Sub-Committee.

According to a statement issued by the Information Department there are age limitations currently in place for migrant domestic workers for different countries. “For Saudi Arabia the minimum age is 25 years, and for other Middle Eastern Countries it is 23 years, and for all other countries it is 21 years,” said the statement.

According to the Government decision these limitations will now be revised to 21 years.

The welfare of female migrant workers who go for employment as domestic aides has been the concern of successive governments who have taken different steps to address this issue.

One such measure has been to increase the minimum age of those allowed to migrate for employment as domestic aides.

In January 2011, the government approved a proposal by the then Minister of Foreign Employment Dilan Perera to raise the minimum legal age of employment for migrant domestic workers from Sri Lanka to 21 from 18.

The very nature of domestic employment in foreign countries makes the employees vulnerable and therefore the risk of abuse is greater. The older the domestic is, the better she is capable of handling difficult situations. Hence most Governments have looked at imposing minimum age requirements as one way of protecting domestic migrant workers.

Another reason to increase the minimum age of migrant workers is to reduce the social cost of migration. Often those who are compelled to look for employment abroad are young mothers who have children at an age when they need the mother’s care the most.

In order to mitigate the social cost of migrating, the Government in 2007 introduced the requirement of the Family Background Report (FBR) into the regulatory framework for labour migration.

The main provisions of the FBR policy were initially formulated in 2007 by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and Child Protection and were fully implemented in July 2013.

Initially, they covered those with children under the age of five who were moving abroad to undertake female domestic work. Mothers of older children were allowed to migrate abroad for domestic work, subject to demonstrating they had satisfactory alternative care arrangements in place to ensure the protection of children left behind.

The FBR policy has since been amended may times on representation of different stake holders.

The Government should be encouraged to revisit its recent decision to reduce the minimum age of migrant domestic workers. In the country’s desperation to earn dollars it is not advisable to put the female populace’s interest in jeopardy.

The social cost is too great to be measured in dollar terms. Besides the majority of the domestic migrant workers are drawn from among the poorest and most vulnerable segment of society. There is a responsibility cast on the Sri Lankan state to care for these less fortunate members of society rather than expose them to further travails and tribulations.

One is reminded of what a Diplomat stationed in a Gulf country told the then Foreign Minister the late Lakshman Kadirgamar: “ The State is the biggest exploiter of the poor migrant workers. They go into unknown and unchartered territory to face unknown difficulties and send their remittances to swell the coffers at home. The State reaps these rich returns without any investment but still does not do enough to protect them.”

It is noteworthy to mention that at the height of the armed conflict between the government and the LTTE the annual expenditure on the war was equivalent to the annual remittances into the country by the migrant workers.

In other words the burden of funding the war was on the poor and vulnerable particularly the women. Will the poor and vulnerable be called upon to play a similar role in the country’s battle to stay afloat in the economic war?.

( javidyusuf@gmail.com )