Repatriation of 'illegal' RI workers
Wahyu Susilo, Jakarta
About 160,000 Indonesian illegal migrant workers will return home under an amnesty scheme provided by the Malaysian government, which has set a repatriation deadline of Nov. 14.
Kuala Lumpur's amnesty policy for illegal Indonesian workers comes as a relief, as they can come home without fear of sanctions, at least temporarily. On the other hand, the policy has created more difficulties for Jakarta.
The government has not been able to draw up an action plan since July -- when the mass repatriation was decided? -- to prepare for the workers' return because of an uncertainty about the deadline. The Malaysian government has unilaterally changed the repatriation schedule three times, from the original Sept. 1 deadline to Nov. 16 -- after Idul Fitri -- and now, January 2005.
This shows that Jakarta's bargaining power vis-a-vis Kuala Lumpur in setting the repatriation deadline is very weak.
Although the hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrant workers who are returning these days are not part of this government-sponsored repatriation, Jakarta must take a serious approach toward the management of all repatriating migrant workers, especially as this occurs as part of the annual Idul Fitri exodus.
Meanwhile, a tendency to criminalize migrant workers by referring to them as illegal overseas workers or illegal migrants has provided justification for the state to discriminate them in terms of welfare and protection. This discrimination has been demonstrated by the Dumai and Batam municipal administrations in their refusal to provide their territories as transit repatriation points. In this context, the government is obviously neglecting its responsibility to protect its citizens.
Thorough observation will show that the problem of undocumented migrant workers has arisen as because of corruption, collusion and nepotism in the bureaucracy that has led to the poor management of recruiting and placing migrant workers. The issue if further compounded because the performance of domestic recruitment companies is not monitored, and employers prefer to hire undocumented workers to rake in a greater profit, as employers can cut costs in levies and wages for unskilled labor.
Despite this inequality between undocumented migrant workers and employers, the Malaysian government has been relatively blind to the practice and has never taken any significant legal action against Malaysian employers who hire undocumented workers.
Given this situation, it is only natural that the government implement political diplomacy and question Kuala Lumpur's stance toward their nationals -- both individual and corporate -- that employ undocumented migrant workers and push them to adopt a firm policy in this matter.
Meanwhile, media coverage and monitoring of workers returning to Indonesia through Belawan, Tanjung Priok and Tanjung Perak ports -- about 15,000 people as of today -- have found that the majority of workers have had their belongings seized while in detention camps. It has also been learned that violence is still used in their arrest.
The shooting case of Unus, a migrant worker from East Nusa Tenggara, stands testament to the brutality of Malaysia's deportation process. Likewise, the treatment workers experienced at the hands of PT Indosima and PT Pinangsia while in transit and en route to their hometowns was inhumane.
The tragedy in 2002 at Nunukan, of at least 64 migrant workers died in transit camps from dehydration, malnutrition and diarrhea, should never recur.
However, preventing this and other such occurrences will be possible only if the government has its crisis management department handle the mass repatriation of migrant workers from Malaysia.
Two urgent steps must be taken by the government in the repatriation of undocumented migrant workers: First, the government must respond immediately so they will be involved directly; and second, they must pursue political diplomacy.
The quick-response strategy must begin with ensuring that the Malaysian government is consistent with their amnesty policy and will not conduct any more raids -- with violence or otherwise -- against undocumented migrant workers. The government must then ensure that all Indonesian missions in Malaysia can issue repatriation documents (SPLP) to all migrant workers wishing to come home during this amnesty period. This administrative process must be transparent and affordable, and must also be free from extortion and brokering.
The government must also guarantee security as regards transportation, in particular checking the seaworthiness and passenger capacity of sea transportation.
Upon the strengths of its past experience in repatriating workers regularly, the government must take over repatriation services for undocumented migrant workers from PT Indosima and PT Pinangsia, as these firms prioritize their business profit rather than the security and safety of migrant workers.
These quick-response steps must be taken to show the state's commitment to protecting its citizens, and that the project is not a waste of the budget.
The second step is political diplomacy, that is, maximizing all political resources at the government's disposal to conduct negotiations at an executive level on the protection of Indonesian migrant workers in Malaysia. The government must send a diplomatic note to Kuala Lumpur immediately to ensure that they will remain within the bounds of human rights enforcement in its handling of undocumented migrant workers.
The Malaysian government must also be urged to act fairly by punishing employers and companies proven to have employed undocumented Indonesian migrant workers.
Finally, one thing the government must not forget is to demand an amendment to the memorandum of understanding on labor export and to renew it with the inclusion of an article on migrant worker protection, particularly for those workers employed as domestic help and in the handling of undocumented migrant workers without violating human rights.
The writer is a Labor Policy Analyst at Migrant CARE.