Making it compulsory for employers to bank in the wages of domestic workers is only a "piecemeal solution" to the gamut of problems faced by domestic workers, according to migrant rights group Tenaganita.

In a statement commenting on the proposed amendments to the Employment Act 1955, its director Irene Fernandez said, although a positive step, this will not eliminate the rampant discrimination and abuse faced by domestic workers.

"The piecemeal and ad hoc amendments proposed to Section 57A of the Act will in no way eliminate the discrimination faced by domestic workers; the abuse suffered daily in the private domain of employers, and in providing them the equal treatment to benefits as enjoyed by all other workers in the country," she said.

Human Resources Minister Fong Chan Onn was reported in newspapers today as saying that the move would ensure protection of wages for domestic workers, prevent employers from withholding wages and prevent non-payment of wages.

More than 300,000 employers will have to open bank accounts in the names of domestic workers and pay the salary into the accounts each month.

Protection for workers

Fernandez said the ministry would have to do more before it could "boast" of protecting the human rights of domestic workers.

"Instead of just expanding Section 57A of the Act, the ministry should politically commit itself to developing a separate legislation on domestic workers. Such a legislation would define domestic work, benefits, leave and fundamental rights of a worker."

She pointed out that Malaysia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) but this commitment is not reflected in the statutes of the country and in enforcement.

"Until (Malaysia) abides by international human rights standards as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the Convention on the Protection of Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families, and Cedaw, it has no right to spout false rhetoric on its human rights record and efforts to increase protection."

She also urged the ministry to emulate the Hong Kong government which has moved the protection of domestic workers' rights under the Employment Ordinance. This not only regulates workers' minimum wages and rest days but also stipulates the penalty in the event of breach of the rules.

"For example, underpayment is an offence and the employer is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of HK$200,000 dollars and imprisonment for one year. And an unlawful deduction brings in a penalty of HK$100,000 and one year's imprisonment.

"These forms of guarantee under the employment regulations will show proof that the government is committed to protecting domestic workers, making employers responsible and accountable and reducing exploitation and abuse."

Standardised contract

Fernandez said the problems related to wages in Malaysia cover more than just payment of monthly wages.

"How does the domestic worker know what her wages are unless there is a clearly defined standardised contract of terms and conditions of employment, signed at the country of origin and attested to by the relevant embassy of the worker?"

In recognising that the wages have to be paid into the domestic worker's bank account, the government must now address these questions:

- How are wages calculated?

- Will it be a blanket assumed wage that is not defined anywhere?

- Will the wages include overtime payment?

- What will be the rules for deductions?

- Who makes the decision on deductions and what are the rights of the domestic worker?

She pointed out that Tenaganita has come across instances of "unlawful deductions" - including cost of repairs of washing machine, breaking of cutlery and crockery, purchase of medicines and fixing of new telephone line "because the domestic worker's family had called her twice from Indonesia".

Some employers even have the audacity to deduct RM250 because the domestic worker had left the house without the employer's permission because she was being abused, said Fernandez.

Without clear contractual terms, she said, the current discriminatory practices in the recruitment and employment of house helpers will continue.

"From the cases we have handled, we have seen a trend where employers employ the worker as a domestic worker but then she is made to work in a launderette, in a restaurant or in a grocery. The worker actually does two jobs but is only paid the wages of a domestic worker."

Although the employers know that they are violating the work permit, they continue to act unscrupulously because the conditions of work are not stipulated in any law, she said.

"This non-recognition of domestic work as work has opened wide doors for abuse, exploitation and treatment of domestic workers as maids, servants or slaves."