HISTORY
OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT IN MALAYSIA
(From British Colonialism, Independence…)
- Charles Hector
In
Malaysia, the trade union movement seems to be weakening and the number of
unions and union membership has not only stagnated but is also decreasing. Of
the about 14.6 million workers, there are only about 924,961 workers that are
union members in 2017. In the private sector, union membership has been
declining from about 376,362 in 2014, to about 354,313 in 2017.
Trade
Unions have been controlled by laws, first imposed by the British colonial
government, which was continued post-independence by UMNO dominated coalition
government – today known as the Barisan Nasional.
Malaysian
trade union and worker laws fall far short of minimum international standards,
so much so when Malaysia wanted to be part of the Trans Pacific Partnership
Agreement (TPPA), one of the pre-conditions was that Malaysia makes significant
amendments to its existing labour laws to make it more at par with minimum
human rights and worker rights standards. The TPPA may be no more, and still
there has been no amendments done yet.
When
there is a violation of worker/trade union rights, sadly Malaysian unions still
do not choose to struggle through pickets, strikes or campaigns against
employers – but rather choose to simply lodge complaints with the relevant
government institutions, which leads to court actions, which may also go
through the appeal process lasting for many years. Sometimes, even when workers
and unions do win, the remedies are lame and it really has no impact on
employers and/or instrumental in bringing changes in laws. Employers are very happy
with the state of affairs, for this method of resolution of ‘industrial
dispute’ do not really impact its business and profits – the only victims are
workers and unions.
What
has happened to the trade union movement is an acceptance of the ‘limitations’
imposed on them by the authorities, and a choice of surviving within that
‘limited space’ with a strong adherence to the law, even if that law is unjust.
There is also very little effort to reach out to the Malaysian public and/or
even Member of Parliaments, State Assemblypersons and/or Senators for help in
the fight for justice.
Since
1998, Malaysians generally have become braver, and have started coming out in much
larger numbers in peaceful assemblies to protest wrongdoings and demand changes
– but alas, this has not moved the trade union movement or workers to do the
same – despite the continued erosion of worker and trade union rights.
The
absence of a progressive, dynamic and new breed of worker leaders may also be a
factor. Current existing union leaders seem to have been compromised – worried
more for about the de-registration of unions, or maybe really their own
financial security and their union employees. Struggle for better rights and
justice always will have an element of risk, and unless unions and their
leaders are brave enough to fight for justice and rights, then things will not
change.
Union
leaders have also forgotten how to use their biggest asset, being the large
numbers of workers acting in solidarity. Now, unions leaders today, many a time
choose to act alone, in a representative capacity – but most employers and the
government are really not at all worried because they believe that Malaysian
unions are weak, and these leaders really do not have the capacity of even moving
their membership to act collectively. Even when pickets are done, sadly the
number of union members that come out and participate is such a small percentage
of the union membership. The last few large pickets and/or protests that
happened in Malaysia was done by migrant workers, and many of them were not
even unionized.
What
happened in Malaysian Airlines, when the company decided to get rid of about
6,000 workers is an indication of the state of the labour movement. These were
all mostly unionized workers, and the union/s affected had more than 10,000
member(maybe even closer to 20,000), but there was not a single mass protest or
picket involving thousands of union members that happened.
To
appreciate what happened to the Malaysian trade union movement, which was at
one time very strong, we need to recall the history of the labour movement in
Malaya, particularly before the subjugation of the labour movement by the
British.
The
Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC), sadly is a creature of British
manipulation, emerging after the stronger Unions, Federation of Unions and worker
leaders were suppressed.
One
would after expected that the MTUC and the Malaysian labour movement would have
resurrected after Malaysia gained independence from the British in 1957, but
sadly that did not happen.
As
time moves on, workers themselves forget the past, and how strong the labour
movement was at one time in the history of Malaysia. This lack of historical
knowledge, and lack of education and empowerment of workers and union members
by existing ‘leaders’ keeps unions weak. For many workers today, union is
simply a ‘subscription’ deducted automatically from their salary by employers
and transmitted to their unions, and the little benefit that they get from
Collective Bargaining Agreements, which are usually salary increments and
bonuses.
Union
now also seldom have regular meetings for its members, if at all, which has
been proven to be essential for the strengthening of solidarity, enhancing
knowledge of members and generally strengthening unions. The lack of involving
members in decision making and union actions, has also developed in an overall
lack of interest in unions. The lack of development of new leaders is
problematic, and we find the same old people retaining union leadership
position for years and years.
Things
need to change, if unionism and the labour movement in Malaysia is to become
stronger and effective, but standing in the way sadly are sometimes the
existing leaders of unions. It is easy to blame government and existing laws,
but if workers and unions are not ready to fight for better rights together as
a union, then there will not be any improvement – and rights and ‘hurdles’ in
law will simply continue to increase.
The
union way must be the ‘union way’ – a struggle together with all workers
standing together, and not a representative struggle of one or two leaders
alone, without the participation or support of the rest of union members.
So,
let us recall the history of the strong labour movement in Malaysia and what
happened.
MALAYSIAN
LABOUR MOVEMENT WAS INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE
The fact that the Malaysian
trade unions movement played a significant role in the political, economic and
socio-cultural life of Malaysia has been forgotten by many. The labour movement
did actively struggle for independence from the British colonial powers, and
contributed significantly even in the determination of the future of Malaysia –
including also the drafting of the Malaysian Constitution.
But
alas, all that was in the past, and the trade unions have been systematically
weakened and isolated from involvement in the life of the nation, first by the
British colonial masters and thereafter by the UMNO-led coalition that has
governed Malaysia since independence. This weakening, nay annihilation, of the
labour movement still continues on today by the actions and/or omissions of a
government that seem to not just have embraced neo-liberalism, but is also seen
today as being pro-business. Government owned and controlled companies, of
late, also is seen to be violating worker rights.
The
future of the labour movement in Malaysia now depends on the workers and the
trade unions, who really must appreciate the history of the Malaysian labour
movement and decide whether they would want to struggle to make the labour
movement once again strong and relevant, or just allow the slow withering away
of not just the movement but also worker and trade union rights.
ORIGINS OF UNION – PROTECTION AND PROMOTIONS OF RIGHTS
Worker
alone is weak but workers united are strong. Workers have always naturally come
to a realization that only together as workers will they be able to fight and
get better rights and justice at their workplace. As such, more likely than not,
there have been organized worker solidarity actions in one form or another ever
since there have been workers in Malaysia.
For
Malaysia, the advent of worker struggle would have been in the rubber
plantations and the tin mines, whose labour was primarily workers of Indian and
Chinese origins – a reality when then the Malay worker resisted working in such
mines and plantations, choosing rather self
employment, small businesses, farming, fishing and the civil service. The majority
of the workers in the civil service were Malay.
General Labour Unions (GLUs) and unions
The
origin of organized labour in the form of worker unions in Malaysia dates back
to the 1920s. Workers then, who were primarily of Chinese and Indian origins in
the private sector and Malay workers in the civil service formed what was known
as General Labour Unions (GLUs). The GLU membership was generally open to any
worker, with no restrictions to any particular industry, sector or workplace,
unlike what we have today in Malaysia. GLUs were generally formed in different
geographical areas all around Malaya. It attracted many workers and was strong.
In the struggle for rights, history shows that many actions were taken
including strikes.
The
labour movement then was not restricted to merely employer-employee matters,
but also played an active role in the political, economic and socio cultural
life of the country. The labour movement, together with other pro-independence
groups, was also actively involved in the struggle for independence from the
British. They were also active in the
struggle against Japanese occupation forces during World War II.
An
example of a union then was the Selangor Engineering Mechanics Association,
which was registered in 1928, maybe one of the first registered trade union.
The
GLUs and many of the unions also started coming together as coalitions and
federations – and finally into the Pan Malayan General Labour Union(PMGLU) and
the Singapore GLU.
British Moves to Weaken Labour Movement – Laws &
Other Strategies
The
British colonial powers, worried about the growing labour movement, decided to try
to control and influence it. The British colonial government were especially concerned about the perceived
influence that the Malaysian Communist Party (MCP) and other pro-independence
groups had in the labour movement.
Methods
the British employed to weaken and control the labour movement included the enactment
of laws like the Trade Union Ordinance of 1940, and through the appointment of
the Trade Union Advisor.
Trade Union Ordinance and Laws – Registration and Control
One
of the primary objects of this Trade Union Ordinance was to stabilise the
labour situation in the interest of increasing production to sustain Britain's economy
and its war efforts. It was not concerned about worker or trade union rights.
The
Malayan economy, at that time, was
geared to support the wartime needs of Britain. As such labour and trade union
rights, and struggles for better rights
that existed, had to be suppressed and subordinated to what the British
considered more important – Imperial Defence. Malaya then was considered the ‘dollar
arsenal’ for the British empire, and the 1940 Ordinance was enacted for the purpose of ensuring a continued flow
of revenue to the British empire.
The
stated object in the title of this 1940 Ordinance was, ``An Enactment for the Registration
and Control of Trade Unions''. Its declared purpose was the fostering of ``the
right kind of responsible leadership amongst workers and at the same time to
discourage or reduce such influence as the professional agitators may have had
and to reduce the opportunities or the excuse for the activities of such
persons.''[i]
It was clearly to weaken the existing labour movement, and transform existing
trade unions and union leadership into what the British wanted.
The
existing worker solidarity was to be destroyed, and a ‘divide and weaken’
policy was the object. Private sector workers were to be separated from public
sector workers, and workers from different industry and sectors were to be kept
apart. The role of unions were to be limited to simply ‘industrial relations’
matters – matters between workers and employers only. Unions were no longer
allowed to be involved in matters concerning the nation – including the
struggle for independence.
This
new 1940 Trade Union Ordinance now required that unions in Malaya had to
be registered (or rather re-registered), and this meant an application to the
government, government approval and registration. This allowed the government
not to re-register some of the stronger unions, and federation of unions across
different sectors/industry.
As
such, the new law prevented government (or public sector) employees and private
sector employees belonging to the same union. The affiliation of unions to
other classes of unions was also prevented. Restriction was also imposed on the
usage of union funds.
The
registration rules were somewhat restrictive; for instance government employees
and non-government employees could not anymore belong to the same union or even
to affiliate itself to unions of other classes of workers. Union funds usage
was also restricted - it could no longer be used for a variety of other
purposes including political purposes. Under these rules, all the existing GLUs
(or even other Federation of Unions across different sectors, industry or
occupation) were un-registerable and therefore could no longer operate legally.
The
new Trade Union Ordinance and laws that came into force in 1946 effectively killed
the GLUs, who could no longer be registered (or re-registered) under the new
law, and as such could no more able to operate legally. It also killed off many
stronger unions.
What
is of interest was that this new policy and laws did not apply to the union
movement in Britain and the United Kingdom, just for Malaysia. British unions
to date are still involved in the political struggles, and even political
parties like the Labour Party, in the United Kingdom.
Pan Malaysian General Labour Union (PMGLU) - Pan Malayan
Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU)
In
1947, the Pan Malayan General Labour Union, which was established in 1946, who
later changed its name to Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU), boasted
a membership of 263,598, and this represented more than half the total
workforce in Malaysia. 85 percent of all existing unions were part of the PMFTU[ii]
The
attitude of the Malayan worker was more assertive during this period; for
instance, "A strike was reported of Chinese and Indian hospital workers
because they no longer wanted to be addressed as 'boy' . . . .", and
workers began to see their subjection to physical punishments as unacceptable.[iii] "Tamil trade unionists refused to suffer any longer
the use of the derogatory term 'Kling'. Estate workers no longer dismounted
from their bicycles when a dorai, or planter, passed by."[iv] In short, unions concern went beyond limited industrial
relations matters or employee-employer matters concerning work rights and
working conditions.
The
British Colonial Government wanted to crush this this development, and the ever
strengthening labour movement, decided to ‘reconstruct’ the organized labour
movement in Malaysia and Singapore.
While
the Singapore Trade Union Adviser, S.P.Garett, allowed the Singapore GLU (SGLU)
to reorganize as a Federation and operate legally without registering which led
to the formation of the Singapore Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) in August
1946.
In
Malaya, however, the then Trade Union Adviser John Alfred Brazier, did not want the same for Malaya –
he did not want the PMGLU to be recognized or continue to exist. He ruled that
all the branch unions had to register, and that thereafter there be no
relationship between any of the newly registered unions with the PMGLU (that
later came to be known as the PMFTU). The registered unions were not allowed to
seek guidance or remit funds to PMFTU. This created problems for the PMFTU,
that ultimately led to its demise.
The
Trade Union Ordinance required the
registration(or re-registration) of Trade Unions according to sector or
industry, and this allowed the government to deny registration to unions they
considered strong, unacceptable and/or ‘militant unions’
Until
the proclamation by the British colonial authorities of the state of
"Emergency" in Malaya and Singapore in 1948, most of the plantation
trade unions and federations of plantation trade unions in Malaya were
affiliated to the PMFTU. It is of interest, that the British may have
considered the PMFTU as a bigger threat than even the Communist Party of
Malaya(CPM), for the PMFTU was outlawed even before the CPM was.
Trade Union Adviser
Another
method that was employed by the British, was to try and influence the Trade Unions,
and to this end in 1945, a British Trade Unionist, John Alfred Brazier, was
appointed by the government as Trade Union Adviser. English educated middle class individuals were
groomed and trained to replace the then existing progressive worker leadership
of trade unions. One of the targeted
unions were the Plantation Worker Unions.
The
government appointed trade union adviser whose objective was not to strengthen
but rather to weaken the labour movement in Malaya which included to eliminate
its role in the political, socio-economic and cultural life of the nation, and
narrowly restrict its activities to ‘industrial relations’, that is the
disputes between employers and workers.
This
was unnatural development as workers are also citizens and human persons who
live in the country. Who wins the Federal, State and Local government elections
is material – the wrong people and parties may mean anti-worker and anti-trade
union policies and laws. This restriction did lead to further erosion of worker
rights and the power of negotiation for better terms. If water, basic amenity and
the cost of living go up, it also has a direct impact on the lives of the
worker and their families, and to bar unions and workers from taking up or
speaking on such issues were absurd.
It
must not be forgotten that workers and their unions had played a very significant
role in the struggle for independence of Malaya from the British colonial
government. They also played a significant role in developing the Constitution
of Malaya - now Malaysia.
The
PMFTU, Clerical Unions of Penang, Malacca, Selangor and Perak, and the Peasant's
Union were a part of the Pan-Malayan Council of Joint Action (PMCJA),
with Tan Cheng Lock as chairman and Gerald de Cruz as Secretary-General, [v]
who actively campaigned on matters concerning the Malaysian Constitution.
It
must be reiterated that what the British did to the trade unions in Malaysia
was contrary to the accepted position and role of trade unions in England. To
this day, trade unions in the United Kingdom continue to play an active role in
the political life until today, being still very much affiliated to the Labour
Party. The manner in which the British treated the labour movement in Malaya
and Singapore, was not at all the same the way they treated their own labour
movement in Britain. In Malaysia, the object was clearly ‘union busting’ for
the benefit of employers and businesses, most of which were British owned or
controlled.
Other Laws – Crackdown on the Labour Movement
Besides
the new labour laws, The British colonial government also used other laws to
suppress or carry out ‘union busting’, a term we use today.
In 1947,
the ordinary trespassing law was used to keep union organisers from meeting and
speaking with workers in plantations. For instance in late March 1947, a large
police force came to the Dublin estate in Kedah to arrest a Federation of
Trades Unions official for trespassing as he was speaking to a group of workers
there. When the workers closed ranks around the official, the police opened
fire, killing one worker and wounding five[vi].
In a
clash at the Bedong estate on 3 March 1947, between police and workers, 21 workers
were injured; whereby "the strike leader died of injuries received at the
hands of the police a few days later". 61 of these workers were charged
and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.[vii]
The
existing law then was that workers could not be terminated just for exercising
their right to strike – which was a worker’s right. But in October 1947, the
Supreme Court in the case of three woman rubber tappers who were contesting in
court that their dismissal for striking was wrong, the court ruled that
striking was a breach of contract and that the dismissal was justified. This
was a major change of law and policy.
Unionist
were also convicted for intimidation. In November 1947 S. Appadurai,
vice-president of the Penang Federation of Trade Unions and chairman of the
Indian section of the Penang Harbour Labour Association was charged for having
written to an employer warning him against using ‘blacklegs’. ‘Backlegs’ are persons who acts
against the interests
of a trade
union by continuing
to work during
a strike, or
taking over a
striker's job during a strike. In
law then and before this, it was wrong for employers to use ‘backlegs’ when
workers are on strike. However, in this case, the said union leader was found
guilty and sent to prison.
In
January 1948, K. Vanivellu, secretary of the Kedah Federation of Rubber Workers
Unions was charged for having written to an employer asking him to reinstate 14
workers who had been dismissed for striking and suggesting that if he did not,
the remaining workers might leave the job.
Hence,
various other laws and the courts were also used wrongly, for the purpose of
union busting pursuant to the new British policy to weaken the labour movement
in Malaysia,
New Amendments to the Trade
Union Ordinance - 1948
The
Trade Union Ordinance, was again amended to weaken unions. New amendments to
the Trade Union Ordinance were passed by the Federal Legislative Council on 31
May 1948. The amendments were in three parts.
The
first stipulated that a trade union official must have at least three years
experience in the industry concerned.
The
second prohibited anyone convicted of certain criminal offenses (notably
intimidation and extortion, which were common charges against unionists) from
holding trade union office.
The
third stated that a Federation could only include workers from one trade or
industry[viii]
The
first provision was seen as "a
measure designed to exclude educated 'outsiders'.”, It also created problems
because many workers worked different industry and sector because work then available
during that time was not permanent – more of a seasonal or transient nature. It
is like what is happening now, with the use of the precarious short term
contracts, where after the end of contracts, workers have no choice to find
another job – more often than not in a different industry and sector.
The
third part that insisted that a Federation could only include workers from one
trade or industry effectively killed the PMFTU and even the SFTU. This divided
private sector workers further, and it also affected public sector workers –
because it prevented workers from different sectors and industries from coming
together and fighting for better rights and common issues.
PMFTU outlawed in June 1948
On
12 June 1948, the British colonial government finally outlawed PMFTU. This is
interesting considering the fact that only later in July 1948, was the
Malaysian Communist Party and other left wing groups made illegal. Can we say
that for the British colonial government, the bigger concern or threat was the
labour movement and unions - not the Communist party?
Many
of the leaders of the labour movement were arrested, charged, convicted and
sentenced. S.A. Ganapathy, for example, who was the first President of the
300,000-strong Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU), was hanged by
the British in May 1949. He was said to be on the way to the police to
surrender a firearm he found, when he was arrested by the police and sentenced
to hang in Pudu Jail.
Council of Trade Unions – Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC)
Effectively,
the British colonial government succeeded in crushing the labour movement in
Malaya. With the requirement of registration, and the powers vested in the
Registrar of Trade Unions, the government could now eliminate the stronger
‘trouble maker’ trade unionist and trade unions, and break up the labour
movement according to sectors/industries – divide and rule.
In January
1949, there only remained 163 registered Trade Unions with a total membership
of only 68,814. In comparison, PMFTU had a membership of about 263,598 – which
represented more than 50% of the total workforce.
The
Council of Trade Unions was formed and they organized the Conference of Malayan
Trade Union Delegates on 27-28 February 1949, and this gave birth to what is today
known as the Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC),
Now,
since the amended new trade union laws prohibited the formation of Federation
of Trade Unions from different trades, sectors and industry, MTUC could not be
registered as a Trade Union or a Federation of Trade Unions, and had to be
registered under the Societies Act as a society.
1957 – Independent Malaya
& Continued Weakening of the Labour Movement
On
31st August 1957, Malaya got its independence from the British but
alas the position of the new UMNO-led coalition government that ruled since
then until now did not defer much from their past British colonial masters.
Malaysia
may have gained independence, but alas workers and trade unions continued to be
denied independence. They continued to be oppressed and suppressed, by the
UMNO-led government – who adopted and continued the British ‘divide and rule’
policy and laws, and the restrictions and control with regard to trade union
activities, trade union funds and even trade union leadership restrictions.
The
struggle for independence of Malaysia took many forms ranging from armed
struggle to diplomatic negotiations, and for some the handing over power to the
UMNO-led coalition was not real independence, and some continued to struggle
on. UMNO-BN government, and some leaders, continues to be confused as to who
were fighting to gain our independence from – the British or the Communist
Party of Malaya(and others). Members of the police and military serving the
British colonial government are shockingly still seen as ‘heroes of
independence’, and the recent invitation of 31 British army veterans to
participate in the 2017 Independence Day celebration highlights this continued
confusion.
Some
suggest that the British choice in handing over power to the UMNO led
coalition, a ‘friend’, was basically to ensure the protection of British owned
companies and assets, and the continued flow of resources and profits from
Malaysia to Britain. All these may not matter, as we now accept that Malaysia
is an independent state. What matters is that workers, unions and the labour
movement continue to be oppressed and/or stifled even many years after
independence.
The
role and influence of the labour movement in socio-economic and political life
and future of the nation continues to be slowly eroded as the current government’s
policy is perceived to be pro-businesses and employers. A greater concern seems
to be to ensure smooth unhindered operation of business and profits, something
that may not change soon as the government too now are employers in the growing
number of government owned and/or controlled private businesses.
The Labour Movement today and in the future
Malaysia continues with a ‘divide and rule’ policy of the
trade union movement – permitting only unions based on occupation, sector and
industry, and disallowing the formation of unions or federation of unions
across different sectors, industry and occupation. Private sector workers and
public sector workers are still prevented from belonging to common unions.
Malaysian Trade Union Congress(MTUC) and CUEPACS continue to be registered as societies.
Control of the trade union movement, union and worker rights
and powers, was then justified as Malaysia needed to attract the foreign
investor to set up factories, and hence make available more jobs and income for
Malaysia. Low wages and a passive workforce makes Malaysia attractive, and the
fact that there has been no strikes for almost 4 or more decades is seen as
positive.
Well, such justifications may be good for businesses and
maybe even Malaysia, but it certainly is not helping workers – their wages
still remain low, and their rights continue to be eroded. A perusal of laws,
will see that the UMNO-BN government has been continuously eroding worker
rights through various amendments of existing laws, and even new laws. In a
previous article entitled, ‘Worker and trade union rights in BN-ruled Malaysia’,
I have dealt with this erosion of rights.
Worker rights education is also not a priority, and it is
not even in our education curriculum. Hence, many workers are not even aware of
existing rights in Malaysia, and more importantly how they can claim it. The
government also is not bothered in the inspection and enforcement of worker and
trade union rights, safe maybe occupational safety and health rights.
A perusal of the regular Ministry of Human Resources Statistics
on Employment and Labour (Statistik Pekerjaan dan Perburuhan) provides no
figures of the number of inspection and enforcement of worker and trade union
rights, save for matters concerning occupational safety and health, eventhough
the law provides for the power of inspection and enforcement to these rights,
and this sadly suggests that Malaysia may not even be interested in protecting
existing worker and trade union rights. These inspection must be done randomly,
and/or based on receipt of information. To not act until worker victims to lodge formal complaints, in
this Malaysian working environment, when many employers easily tend to
terminate workers who lodge formal complaints is not reasonable – like other
rights, inspection and enforcement must be done randomly or on receipt of
information of alleged violations coming from any sources.
Union busting continues. Union Presidents and leaders are
easily terminated for issuing public statements. Union members are terminated
for sending memorandum to election candidates to get their commitment to
struggle for better worker rights. Workers participating in legal pickets are
arrested for ‘making noise’. Union registration, and ‘recognition’ processes
are delayed, not expedited, not just by government bodies, but also by allowing
long drawn out litigations initiated by employers in court challenging even
Minister’s decisions.
Malaysia finally introduced ‘Minimum Wage’, which today
is RM1,000 a month, which is absurd when the government itself acknowledge that
families with income less that RM4,000 are in need of government assistance,
the BR1M(Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia). Logically, assuming a family unit has 2
income earners, the Minimum Wage should really be set at RM2,000. Again, even
here, there was not only delays granted to employers, but also a lack of
enforcement against errant employers.
Unions remain weak, for even when about 6,000 out of
about 20,000 employees of the Malaysian Airlines, whereby the majority were
unionized workers, were terminated, there was not even a single mass protest or
legally permissible picket by these unions.
Hence, the labour movement in Malaysia may have
successfully been weakened, and the reasons may not simply been the laws and
government policies – but also a weak fearful union leadership and members. The
unwillingness of workers and unions to stand for their rights and fight for
better worker and trade union rights is a major problem – no struggle will mean
no improvement. To depend solely on the government to bring about improvement
of rights is foolish, when victims fail to highlight and campaign.
Malaysia’s worker and trade union laws, fall short of
existing international standards. This became evident recently, when as a
precondition of being the part of the TPPA(Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement),
the United States of America insisted significant amendments to Malaysian
worker and trade union laws. It is good that some countries, as a matter of
policy and law, today have adopted a policy that they will not enter into
agreements and/or trade agreements with countries that do not at the very least
have a minimum standard of human rights and worker rights. In response,
Malaysia started reviewing with the intending of amending labour laws, and it
is hoped that this will still be done despite that fact the TPPA may be no
more.
It is rather confusing, embarrassing and sad that some
trade union leaders in Malaysia still consider Trade Union Adviser John Alfred Brazier, one of the tools used by the British to carry out ‘union busting’ of the Malaysian
labour movement in the 1940s, as the father of Trade Unionism in Malaysia. But
then, of late, some unions have gone beyond just focusing on employer-employee
issues, into addressing other more pressing concerns of socio-economic, politic
and cultural issues affecting the nation – like the increase of cost of living
brought about by the introduction of new taxation law like the GST, and
government failures possibly also kleptocracy and corruption that have caused
significant losses of monies, and has also impacted the economy of the country.
MTUC and other trade unions, also did in the past endorse
and campaign for some candidates contesting in the General Elections, that saw
the UMNO-BN government reacting and removing temporarily the MTUC from its
position as the body representing workers in Malaysia and at the
ILO(International Labour Organisation).
There will always be risks in the struggle for rights,
and the question now is what will Malaysian workers and trade unions do –
remain in the role that the British Colonial Government wanted, which seems
also the same as what the present UMNO-BN government wants, or will they wake
up and fight for better worker and trade union rights – and a re-emergence of a
strong labour movement in Malaysia?
Without highlighting wrongs, violations and struggles for
better rights, issues and concerns will not be known to others, so there will
also be no pressure on government/s and employers to protect and improve worker
and trade union rights in Malaysia. Will even the election manifestos and
policy of the political parties in Malaysia contain any commitment to the
improving of rights and the strengthening of the labour movement? Will workers
and unions choose to continue to remain in the ‘restricted space’ provided for
them by the British colonial government and now the UMNO-BN government, or will
they finally break out and regain some their old glory, strength, power and
relevance?
There are about 14.6 million workers in a country of
about 30 million plus, and as such they do have much power and say in not just
the future of the labour movement, but also Malaysia. It is sad when just about
100,000 Felda setters and their families can make their rights and welfare a
major national concern, and the so much more workers and union members cannot.
[i] The first of a two-part series on the trade union movement in
Malaysia by Dr Leong Yee Fong
[ii] The Institutional Approach to Labour and Development edited
by Klárá Fóti, Laurids Lauridsen, Gerry Rodgers, Published by Frank Cass &
Co Ltd
[iii] Morgan, p.168
[iv] Harper cites E.A. Ross, minute, 10
February 1946, and LAB/92/47
[v] Tribune Staff Reporter (23 December 1946).
"K.L. Forms New 'Action Council'". The Malayan Tribune.
[vi] Morgan, p.178
[vii] Morgan, p.178. He cites Straits Times,
5 March and 8 March 1947.
[viii] The amendments are described in Morgan,
pp.185,6; and Stenson, f.n., p.8. Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstances_prior_to_the_Malayan_Emergency#cite_note-49
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment