Written by Leezzie John, a second-year law student of the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya. Edited by Luc Choong. ‘Bibik’, ‘Kakak’, ‘Nenek’ — domestic workers throughout Malaysia go by many names. Akin to millions of domestic workers across the globe, they work laboriously from dusk to dawn to keep many family units afloat. Despite their important roles, domestic workers are often left with the short end of the stick, suffering behind closed doors. I. INTRODUCTION Domestic workers are the unsung heroes of countless families. They work around the clock and contribute to private households by cooking, cleaning, caring for children, tending the elderly and so much more.[1] As it currently stands, it is estimated that at least 52.6 million adults work as domestic workers globally in 2010, along with 7.4 million children below the age of 15.[2] However, due to the often hidden and unregistered nature of this work, the total number of domestic workers could be as high as 100 million.[3] To put things into perspective, if all domestic workers worked for a single country, the country would be the tenth largest employer worldwide.[4] While domestic work is considered one of the oldest and most important occupations in the world,[5] the predominant composition of women (many of whom are migrants or members of historically disadvantaged groups) still remains a closely universal feature.[6] In fact, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) provides that an overwhelming 83% of domestic workers are female,[7] reflecting the importance of domestic work as an employment source for women.[8] Asia holds 41% of all domestic workers worldwide;[9] Malaysia alone employs between an estimated 300,000 and 400,000 documented and undocumented migrant domestic workers.[10] Most, if not all, of these workers turn towards domestic work as a last resort to provide for themselves and their families.[11] However, the nature of domestic work coupled with weak legislation leaves domestic workers in a rather precarious situation. The Malaysian government’s complacency not only renders these workers less visible than the others but also more vulnerable to abusive practice.[12] Presently, even if domestic workers are documented, they are precluded from enjoying the right to minimum wage, social security or any other rights granted under Malaysian labour laws.[13] Ergo, this article envisages to shed light on the struggles faced by domestic workers in Malaysia and pinpoint possible solutions to ameliorate their plight. II. DOMESTIC WORKERS: WHO ARE THEY? The prominent Domestic Workers Convention 2011 (No. 189), which seeks to bring domestic workers under the umbrella of labour law,[14] succinctly defines ‘domestic workers’ in Article 1:[15] (a) the term ‘domestic work’ means work performed in or for a household or households; (b) the term ‘domestic worker’ means any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship; (c) a person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis is not a domestic worker. According to the preliminary guidelines of the ILO Survey of Domestic Workers:[16] ‘Provision (a) is meant to cover both domestic workers who are members of the household and live with the household (live-in domestic workers) and domestic workers who are not members of the household and do not live with the household but work as domestic worker for that household (live-out domestic workers). Provision (b) is meant to exclude persons performing domestic work in or for the household who do not have an employment relationship such as members of the family who are taking care of the house without an employment relationship. Finally, provision (c) is meant to exclude persons performing domestic work on a casual basis such as the babysitter or the handyman bringing the purchases made at the supermarket.’ These definitions correspond with the widely used definition of domestic work under Revision 3.1 of the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC): ‘Activities of private households as employers of domestic staff’.[17] From this, a shared characteristic among all domestic workers as being employed by private households can be observed. In essence, they are in an employment relationship with private households, even though it might sometimes be ‘disguised’.[18] Apart from caring for children and helping households remain clean, domestic workers typically support the elderly, the ailing and the disabled by providing hands-on nursing, run errands, make meals and carry out household chores. Their work is thus most essential as it enables their clients to live as independently and comfortably as possible in their own homes.[19] III. HIDDEN FROM SIGHT: THE PLIGHT OF DOMESTIC WORKERS In the face of domestic labour shortages, Malaysia’s heavy reliance on migrant workers makes it one of the largest employers in the Asian region.[20] Concurrently, a majority of economically disadvantaged Asian women are forced to rely on domestic work as a crucial source of income beyond the national borders of their home countries.[21]Although foreign migrant workers are also recruited in the manufacturing, construction, agriculture and service sectors, female migrants often come to Malaysia as domestic workers.[22] The Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia are among the major labour exporters of female migrant workers.[23] On the whole, substantial migration often occurs from places like Indonesia, Laos and Cambodia to wealthier countries such as Malaysia.[24] In fact, it is estimated that more than 90% of the domestic workers in Malaysia are Indonesian.[25] Despite the seemingly mutualistic relationship between employers and labourers, subpar working conditions and scant legal protection for the domestic workforce disproportionately affect women, further reinforcing gender disparities in the assessment of decent work.[26] This sector is established for being highly vulnerable to abuse, forced labour and exploitation. Notwithstanding the progress in many countries, existing international labour standards still allow for the exclusion of domestic workers in their application, leaving them unprotected by even the most basic of labour rights.[27] Further, as domestic work is disproportionally conducted by migrant labour, migrants tend to be more exposed than nationals to the risk of exploitation and abuse due to their migrant status; they are often undeclared and poorly protected by legislation.[28] In fact, statistics estimated that domestic workers are three times more likely to be living in poverty or be slightly above the poverty line than other workers. Even if domestic workers are above the poverty line, they still live without sufficient income to make ends meet. Fewer than 10% of domestic workers are covered by an employer-provided retirement plan, and just one fifth receive health insurance coverage through their job.[29] A. Insufficient Legal Protection Presently, domestic workers prevail as one of the least protected groups of workers under the national labour legislation.[30] In most countries, domestic workers are still viewed as informal ‘help’ instead of ‘workers’ and are excluded from national labour legislation. Perceived to be an inborn aptitude for females, domestic work is often viewed as an inherently unskilled form of labour. Societal norms dictate that it is a form of labour traditionally performed by the women of the family without pay and as such, is considered exogenous to the productive economy.[31]The deleterious omission of domestic workers from labour laws perpetuates the historical marginalisation of women’s labour and translates to a disproportionally skewed distribution of rights. This leads to protections enjoyed by other members of the workforce (such as minimum wage, social security schemes and maternity benefits) not similarly afforded to domestic workers.[32] However, even in countries where domestic workers are covered by national labour laws, the legal gaps are recurrent, enforcement remains poor and protections persist untranslated into practice.[33]Migrant domestic workers might be unfairly excluded from provisions and lack any realistic means to enforce their rights.[34] As such, domestic workers fall outside the standard regulatory and inspection frameworks applicable to other workplaces. This enables agencies to engage in unfettered criminal behaviours such as fraud, deception and imposition of excessive recruitment fees.[35] Within the context of Malaysia, domestic workers’ rights are not even recognised by the Employment Act 1955,[36]which purports to protect them. As a matter of fact, they are classified as servants, maids and helpers which are excluded from key protections legally granted to other workers.[37] The definition of a domestic servant is provided in the Act: ‘“domestic servant” means a person employed in connection with the work of a private dwelling-house and not in connection with any trade, business, or profession carried on by the employer in such dwelling-house and includes a cook, house-servant, butler, child’s nurse, valet, footman, gardener, washerman or washerwoman, watchman, groom and driver or cleaner of any vehicle licensed for private use;’[38] Although domestic workers in Malaysia are legally recognised as ‘domestic servants’, the Employment Act 1955explicitly denies them of pertinent basic rights afforded to other workers under Parts IX, XII and XIIA of the schedule.[39] The parts encompass contract terminations, maternity benefits, rest days, hours of work and holidays, as well as benefits related to termination, layoffs and retirement.[40] In 2011, the ILO adopted the salient Domestic Workers Convention[41] which came into force on 5th September 2013. This convention is crucial in championing legal protection for domestic workers globally. It furnishes an international framework for national laws as it covers pertinent issues such as exploitation and slavery.[42] Regrettably, after seven years of effect, Malaysia has not ratified this convention.[43] Legal protections remain deficient for the majority of domestic workers across the globe, leaving them vulnerable to a myriad of exploitation and abuse. B. A Plethora of Workplace Abuses Domestic work that remains poorly regulated and undervalued exposes countless domestic workers to abuse and at worse, slavery.[44] Some of the main contributing factors that render domestic workers vulnerable to exploitation can be attributed to extreme employer dependency, diminished rights, as well as the isolated and unprotected nature of domestic work.[45] This problem is made worse with existing barriers against domestic workers from reporting abuses or seeking help. Conditions of confinement, lax knowledge on institutions that provide aid or even government-sanctioned passport confiscation proliferate this issue.[46]Further, their workplace being a private domain enables abusive practices to remain hidden from public scrutiny or inspection by labour officers.[47] The lack of accountability enables employers to exploit their workers due to the relatively low risks of repercussions. Migrant workers are often left worse off due to their precarious and controversial legal status in host countries, especially when they possess a poor mastery of the local language and legal literacy.[48] The abuse domestic workers are subjected to comes in various forms. For instance, they are forced to work for excessively long hours without breaks, off days or holidays.[49] Apart from that, physical and sexual violence, psychological abuse, debt bondage, non-payment of wages as well as abusive living and working conditions are also commonly reported all over the world.[50] Domestic workers in Malaysia are certainly not spared from a similar tragic fate. As a matter of fact, Tenaganita (one of the several human rights organisations in Malaysia) admitted to handling about 120 abuse cases among domestic workers from June to December 2018. In 2019, they received 29 new cases within the first two months.[51] According to Tenaganita’s Executive Director, Glorene Dass: ‘These workers don’t just experience one form of violation. They experience multiple, at least six, forms of abuse. Most have not received their wages for months or have had their salary deducted for accommodation, uniforms, food, leave or work permits; many are deprived of good food, have poor living and working conditions, have not had rest days for months or years, their passports are withheld and they are made to work long hours without overtime.’[52] 1. Human trafficking and forced labour Situations of forced labour often arise due to the power asymmetry catalysed when employers isolate live-in domestic workers and restrict their freedom of movement.[53] In other words, it occurs through the imposition of coercive methods to prevent domestic workers from absconding established employment.[54] The grounds for forced labour are often bred through a myriad of threats. For example, forbidding workers from leaving home, withholding unpaid wages, passports and identity documents as well as even limiting or forbidding contact with their families. Deceitful lies about workers’ rights are also used to compel employees to remain in employment. At worse, physical violence is threatened or even utilised.[55] For instance, certain employment recruiters in Malaysia explicitly advise employers to retain their worker’s passport and forbid them from conversing with others, walking alone or even answering the door, especially when they are home alone.[56] Human trafficking and forced labour frequently go hand in hand, with the former typically happening to impressionable domestic workers recruited under false pretences. An interview by Human Rights Watch discovered that these trafficked women were promised domestic work, only to wind up in restaurants, food stalls or even retail stalls without any pay.[57] Similarly, it occurs in the converse as well, where supposed restaurant workers end up in domestic work instead. Further, instances of child labour in this sector can be attributed to forging workers’ birth dates in order to have them appear older than their actual age — which is arguably an act of child trafficking. Although these underage workers lack sufficient formal education or maturity to understand the implications of working abroad, they are made to sign the forms nonetheless. This is problematic when these minors do suffer abuse at the workplace, as they will think twice before reporting in fear of transgressing the law.[58] Although a large chunk of abuse transpires unreported, annual estimates show that roughly 18,000 to 25,000 returning Indonesian migrants from Malaysia and other destination countries experienced some form of abuse. Furthermore, there is an alarming recurrence of runaway Indonesian migrant workers seeking refuge at the Indonesian embassy in Kuala Lumpur for protection and assistance.[59] For most instances, however, domestic workers tend to hesitate in filing complaints against abusive labour practices and rights violations in consternation of jeopardising their employment contract as well as their residential status.[60] 2. Mental, physical and sexual abuse In Malaysia, the derogatory treatment of foreign domestic workers generally stems from deeply entrenched stigmas which contribute to how these women are viewed by their employers.[61] Psychological, physical and sexual abuse are common realities for many — especially among female domestic workers. The vulnerability to sexual harassment and assault is heightened for live-in workers who are usually forced to sleep in common areas without locks or in shared rooms.[62] Most, if not all, of minor physical assaults along with some of the more severe ones are left untreated, unreported and unprosecuted.[63] Physical abuse occurs in the form of punches, kicks and even brutal beatings resulting in hospitalisation. Bearers of these abuses can be identified through their burnt, bruised, scarred or swollen body parts, often obtained after committing ‘mistakes’ in their course of work viewed from the perspective of the employer.[64] However, physical abuse also occurs when workers are exposed to health and safety risks through their work. For instance, using strong cleaning supplies as required by their employers without being supplied with appropriate protective equipment. In some cases, the workers are provided with little food, while others suffer from severe sleep deprivation or are coerced to sleep in degrading places, like the staircase or bathroom floor.[65] Further, sexual abuse ranges from groping, fondling and worst of all, repeated rape. Even when these women manage to survive the horrors of sexual violence, medical attention is not made accessible until they finally leave their workplace. Leaving the workplace, however, is never an option for most due to consistent threats made by the employers and the involvement of contractual obligations tied to their salary.[66] On the off chance that these abused women are able to seek medical help, migrant workers have to fork out double the amount for the same procedure offered to nationals. The salt in the wound is that a similar level of care accorded to nationals is not given to migrants.[67] In spite of that, the deplorable fact still remains — when they finally leave, they often do so without being granted a single penny of their hard-earned salary.[68] In recent years, it is not uncommon to see domestic workers or maids hit the headlines due to serious infringements by their employers. In Nirmala Bonat v Yim Pek Ha & Anor,[69] the accused Yim Pek Ha was charged with four counts of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to domestic worker Nirmala Bonat, 19, with hot water, a hot iron and a metal cup.[70] In 2010, a 26-year-old Sumatran maid claimed that she had been sexually abused by her male employer since May and had been subjected to beatings from his wife when she refused. She was also allegedly beaten with a belt, scalded with boiling water on her back and scorched with a hot iron on her breasts.[71] In the case of Public Prosecutor v Murugan a/l Arumugam,[72] the accused repeatedly hit his Indonesian maid with a wooden stick and stuck her leg with an iron rod. The abuse continued with her head being shaved, hot water being thrown at her body alongside being locked in a toilet without any food for two days. The violent blunt-force trauma unfortunately led to the paralysis of the victim from the waist down. However, due to her extreme critical condition and irreversible organ damage, the victim could not be resuscitated. The accused was then found guilty of murder and sentenced to be hanged by the neck until death. In Soo Ah Lai & Ors v Public Prosecutor,[73] the appellants were charged with three separate charges under Section 13 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM).[74] The complainant was a 29-year-old Cambodian national who had entered Malaysia legally as a domestic maid. Medical evidence showed that her employers had beaten her two or three days after she first started working at their residence. She had been punched in the chest and beaten with a hot piece of metal on her forearm. Plus, she was not given proper food and was forced to work from 5 am to 2 am on the following day. Further, in Public Prosecutor v Soh Chew Thong & Anor,[75] the victim had a Body Mass Index (BMI) of only 11.9 — far below the minimum BMI measurement of 16 (severe thinness). The court found that the combination of the victim’s multiple injuries, both old and fresh, along with insufficient food and neglect had contributed to the development of her gastric ulcer, which subsequently perforated. The perforation of said gastric ulcer led to the onset of acute peritonitis that went untreated for at least a week, causing her death. The accused only sought medical assistance when the deceased was on her deathbed, and medical evidence established that she died a slow and painful death. In line with that, the perpetrators were convicted and sentenced to death. Finally, the infamous case of Adelina Jerima Sau back in January 2018 remains a bleak memory in the minds of many. She was an Indonesian domestic worker subjected to horrific abuse while working for a family in Penang during her early 20s. By the time she was rescued, she was lying on the porch with the family dog, bearing septic wounds on her body. A day later, she died of multiple organ failure which was possibly contributed by untreated animal bites and malnutrition.[76] She admitted that she was forced to sleep outside with her employer’s dog, starved and subjected to persecution in the past month before her demise.[77] Ambika M.A Shan, the perpetrator, was however given a full acquittal over the murder on account of her age and deteriorating health.[78] 3. Long working hours Amongst all classes of workers, the working hours for domestic workers across the globe are one of the longest and most unpredictable.[79] They routinely work up to 16 hours every single day of the week without any off days.[80] To put things into perspective, while the average work hours in Nepal in 2008 were 39 hours per week, domestic workers worked for 52 hours on average. Similarly, in Malaysia, domestic workers carry out labour for an average of 65.9 hours per week on end.[81] Furthermore, frequent exceptions are made for domestic workers regarding working hours. They are expected to not only work for longer hours but to enjoy no working limitations at all.[82] Most are not even afforded a significant time to rest during the day.[83] The lack of distinction between working and non-working hours also means that the notion of overtime and its related remunerations are not existent.[84] On top of that, 44.9% of all domestic workers or 23.6 million workers worldwide are not entitled to any weekly rest under national legislation.[85] In fact, long working hours are a common occurrence among live-in domestic workers generally employed on a full-time basis. Such live-in arrangements are particularly true for migrant domestic workers, who have to leave their homes behind to work in foreign places with no established residence.[86] The employer’s preference, migrant worker regulations and workplace distance are some of the main contributing factors of long working hours.[87] These arrangements also leave domestic workers vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. For instance, even when they do seek out legal assistance in Malaysia, migrant workers must forfeit RM100 per month while waiting for the outcome of any civil and criminal complaints. Concurrently, they are prohibited from seeking new employment.[88] In addition, most labour contracts reviewed by the Human Rights Watch permit domestic workers one day off per week. However, this could easily be bypassed if they are paid for all seven days.[89] Most of the domestic workers interviewed have fixed monthly salaries and work every single day without rest. The contracts obtained failed to stipulate fixed daily working hours nor pay remunerations for vacation days under Malaysian employment law.[90] The employers and labour agents interviewed defended these policies, citing risks of workers getting impregnated or inviting foreign men into the household. Even so, these workers are typically not paid their full salary nor extra payment for working every day of the week.[91] In 2009, the situation escalated when an Indonesian domestic worker was not only owed RM17,000 in back wages but was badly scarred from years of violence. The huge public outcry led to Indonesia temporarily blocking its domestic workers from coming to Malaysia.[92] This was in spite of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Malaysia and Indonesia that formalised the recruitment of domestic workers from Indonesia to Malaysia back in 2006.[93] The MoU with Indonesia was soon revisited and amended in 2011. However, employers are still permitted to hold domestic workers’ passports with their consent for ‘safekeeping’.[94] 4. Poor remuneration and benefits Perceptions of domestic work in relation to skill level and competency perpetuate the undervaluation of domestic workers, especially in comparison to jobs that are predominately performed by men. As ‘any woman can do this type of work’, domestic work is often titled ‘unproductive work’ and only deserving of low wages.[95] However, another reason why domestic workers suffer low wages is their weak bargaining position. Working in a private household in relative isolation from other workers, coupled with long and unpredictable work hours makes it difficult for workers to convene. This prevents the ability to exchange experiences and information in order to collectively organise.[96]Beyond this, legal and administrative barriers also exist in limiting the domestic workers’ rights to organise — jeopardising their trade union rights.[97] In Malaysia, there is a mixed ratification record for international laws that include the right to collective representation. However, Malaysia has yet to ratify the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (1948)[98] or the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.[99] National laws such as the Trade Union Act 1959[100] and the Industrial Relations Act 1967[101] place restrictions on freedom of association for workers. This position is further frustrated by government policies, bureaucratic practices and other restrictive legislation.[102] All in all, the ability to collectivise is severely impeded by these factors. For instance, Article 28(1)(a) of the Trade Union Act requires union leaders to be a citizen of Malaysia.[103] Although the Trade Union Act, Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act permit migrant workers to join an existing labour union, these rights are not protected in practice.[104] Furthermore, deductions made from wages for accommodation and housing have become customary to this sector. Although this may seem to serve the interests of the workers and their families excessive deductions greatly reduce the already low wages.[105] This undermines the workers’ financial and economic independence. Moreover, wage theft is common whereby workers do not receive their full salary or receive no salary at all. A common tactic utilised by employers would be to only grant their workers full salary at the end of their 2-year contract.[106] Many of the returned domestic workers, however, reported that they never received their full salary. Due to insufficient education, these domestic workers are often unable to calculate and claim payments that they are entitled to. In other cases, their owed salaries are given by the employer to their agents instead.[107] Apart from that, pregnancy often entails unemployment for domestic workers.[108] They suffer exclusion from key maternity protection provisions like maternity leave and maternity cash benefits.[109] As the nature of the employment relationship is usually informal, employers have the propensity to lay off pregnant domestic workers without the fear of victims seeking recourse. This is particularly done when maternity benefit pay-outs fall under the employer’s responsibility and are not covered by a social insurance fund.[110] Thus, this form of discrimination is a deficit in providing decent work, posing great turmoil for domestic workers when it comes to balancing work and their family responsibilities.[111] IV. RECOMMENDATIONS: AN EXERCISE IN EMPATHY The evident line of despicable abuse and exploitation perpetrated against vulnerable domestic workers requires immediate government intervention. Such blatant disrespect for fundamental human rights must be addressed not only for the health and safety of domestic workers, but the reputation of our nation. One of the first steps that can be done by the Malaysian government is to ratify and implement the basic principles embodied under the ILO’s Domestic Workers Convention.[112] Until now, only 23 countries in the world have ratified this pertinent convention, in which the Philippines is the only party for Asia.[113] This convention guarantees domestic workers labour protections on par with other worker categories and allows considerable flexibility in its implementations.[114] This promotion of policies and strategies aims to extend labour and social protection to domestic workers by setting expandable minimum standards over time. It also emphasises the importance of consulting relevant workers’ and employers’ organisations to ensure effective implementation at the local level.[115] Furthermore, Malaysia must prioritise the ratification of the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)[116] as the current state of affairs in highly feminised domestic sectors unequivocally promotes gender-based violence.[117] Special attention should be drawn to General Recommendation No. 26[118] of the convention on women migrant workers to address the impermissible protection offered, especially to domestic workers.[119] International laws aside, it is imperative that Malaysia assess and strengthen its national labour laws. The government needs to recognise that domestic workers are as important and deserving of protection as other labourers. An imposition of a standard fair contract as well as the protection and benefits similarly accorded to other worker categories under the Employment Act 1955[120] are vital to address the atrocities that domestic workers face. However, all this talk of change boils down to the urgent need for a more distinct legislation specifically for domestic workers — largely referred to as the Domestic Workers’ Act. This Act is meant to provide more comprehensive protection by addressing festering issues. For instance, occurrences of domestic workers who ran away from abusive employers only to end up as undocumented workers.[121] It is also essential that this Act covers issues that plague domestic workers such as health and safety, paid leave, off days, minimum wage regulation as well as the right to organise and unionise.[122] This proposal has been consistently promised by the government since 2014 but has yet to see the light of day. The proposed Employment (Domestic Employee) Regulations 2019 is a commendable step in the right direction. It addresses adequate meal and medical treatment, prohibition of ill-treatment and reasonable accommodation as well as adequate rest, but it too has yet to come into fruition.[123] As such, there is still no apt national legislation that truly protects the interest and safety of domestic workers.[124] Furthermore, it is also crucial for the government to establish effective complaint mechanisms and monitoring systems to encourage domestic workers in reporting violations.[125] As suggested by the 2011 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report,[126] it is equally important for Malaysia to ‘make greater efforts to educate migrant workers on their rights, legal resources available, and how to seek remedies against traffickers or employers who fail to meet their legal obligations’.[127] This would supplement the complaint mechanism suggested. V. CONCLUSION In a nutshell, the exponential increase in global demand for domestic workers, especially within growing economies, has enabled employers everywhere to lounge in opulence. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for domestic workers. These workers have long grown accustomed to their cruel fate. The precariousness of low wages, wage theft, job insecurity, little to no benefits, abuse, exploitation and forced confinement remains part and parcel of their line of work. Domestic workers have done an abundance in serving countless individuals and families worldwide, but are still unfairly undervalued for their labour. Malaysia’s extensive reliance on domestic labour further requires the government to make substantial changes to ameliorate the rising detriments within domestic work. The re-education of society on this issue is just as essential for the public to take a stronger stance against the perpetuation of abuse and exploitation of domestic workers. These unsung heroes should not be left to suffer alone and in silence. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Malaya Law Review, and the institution it is affiliated with. Footnotes:
[1] Simonovsky, Y., & Luebker, M. (2011, May 27). Domestic Work Policy Brief 4: Global and Regional Estimates on Domestic Workers. International Labour Organisation. Retrieved from <https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_155951.pdf>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [2] Anti-Slavery International. (n.d.). Domestic Work and Slavery. Anti-Slavery International. Retrieved from <https://web.archive.org/web/20140930183517/http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/child_domestic_work.aspx>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [3] International Labour Organisation. (2016, Jun 16). 100th ILO annual Conference decides to bring an estimated 53 to 100 million domestic workers worldwide under the realm of labour standards. International Labour Organisation. Retrieved from <https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---arabstates/---ro-beirut/documents/pressrelease/wcms_bey_pr_76_en.pdf>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [4] International Labour Organisation. (2013). Domestic Workers Across the World: Global and regional statistics and the extent of legal protection. International Labour Organisation, 19. Retrieved from <https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_173363.pdf>. Site accessed on 10 October 2020. [5] See footnote 2 above. [6] See footnote 4 above, 39. [7] See footnote 1 above, 8. [8] See footnote 1 above, 8. [9] See footnote 1 above, 8. [10] Ke Arah 189. (2020, May 20). Case calls for Domestic Workers’ Act. The Star. Retrieved from <https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2020/05/20/case-calls-for-domestic-workers-act>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [11] See footnote 2 above. [12] See footnote 4 above, 39. [13] See footnote 10 above. [14] See footnote 4 above, 39. [15] Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189) art 1. [16] Mehran, F. (2014, Mar 24). ILO survey on domestic workers: preliminary guidelines. International Labour Organisation, 5. Retrieved from <https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_239520.pdf>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [17] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, (2002). International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) Revision 3.1. New York, NY: United Nations. [18] See footnote 4 above, 8. [19] Wolfe, J., Kandra, J., Engdahl, L., & Shierholz, H. (2020, May 14). Domestic workers chartbook. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from <https://www.epi.org/publication/domestic-workers-chartbook-a-comprehensive-look-at-the-demographics-wages-benefits-and-poverty-rates-of-the-professionals-who-care-for-our-family-members-and-clean-our-homes/>. Site accessed on 10 October 2020. [20] See footnote 4 above, 29. [21] See footnote 4 above, 28. [22] See footnote 4 above, 30. [23] See footnote 4 above, 29. [24] See footnote 4 above, 21. [25] Human Rights Watch. (2004, Jul 22). Help Wanted: Abuses against Female Migrant Domestic Workers in Indonesia and Malaysia. Humans Rights Watch. Retrieved from <https://www.refworld.org/docid/45d077c03c8.html>. Site accessed on 10 October 2020. [26] See footnote 4 above, 21. [27] See footnote 4 above, 39. [28] See footnote 16 above, 8. [29] See footnote 19 above. [30] See footnote 4 above, 46. [31] Smales, P. (2010). The Right to Unite: A Handbook on Domestic Worker Rights across Asia. Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD), 16. Retrieved from <http://apwld.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Right-to-Unite1.pdf>. Site accessed on 10 October 2020. [32] See footnote 31 above. [33] See footnote 4 above, 52. [34] See footnote 4 above, 49. [35] See footnote 4 above, 45. [36] Employment Act 1955 (Act 265) (Malaysia). [37] Tenaganita. (2019, Feb 20). Domestic workers continue to be abused until tougher laws can protect them. Tenaganita. Retrieved from <http://www.tenaganita.net/news-and-press-releases/news/domestic-workers-continue-to-be-abused-until-tougher-laws-can-protect-them/>. Site accessed on 10 October 2020. [38] Employment Act 1955 (Act 265) (Malaysia) s 13. [39] See footnote 31 above, 46. [40] Masriwanie Muhamading. (2017, Jun 16). Gov't urged to adopt Convention 189, provide domestic workers with fundamental workers' rights. New Straits Times. Retrieved from <https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2017/06/249559/govt-urged-adopt-convention-189-provide-domestic-workers-fundamental>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [41] See footnote 15 above. [42] See footnote 2 above. [43] See footnote 2 above. [44] See footnote 2 above. [45] See footnote 4 above, 44. [46] See footnote 25 above, 4. [47] See footnote 36 above. [48] See footnote 4 above, 44. [49] See footnote 2 above. [50] See footnote 4 above, 44. [51] See footnote 36 above. [52] See footnote 36 above. [53] See footnote 4 above, 45. [54] See footnote 4 above, 45. [55] See footnote 2 above. [56] Lin, J. (2013). A Greedy Institution: Domestic Workers and a Legacy of Legislative Exclusion. Fordham International Law Journal, 36(3), 6, 713. Retrieved from <https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2621&context=ilj>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [57] See footnote 25 above. [58] Athira Nortajuddin. (2020, Feb 26). Indonesia’s abused domestic helpers. The ASEAN Post. Retrieved from <https://theaseanpost.com/article/indonesias-abused-domestic-helpers>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [59] See footnote 25 above. [60] See footnote 4 above, 53. [61] Huling, A. (2012). Domestic Workers in Malaysia: Hidden Victims of Abuse and Forced Labor. International Law and Politics, 44(629), 647. Retrieved from <https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/44.2-Huling.pdf>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [62] Vigani, A. (2017, May). Women Domestic Workers: Undervalued, Unprotected, Invisible. International Alliance of Women. Retrieved from <http://womenalliance.org/3726-2>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [63] See footnote 61 above, 649. [64] See footnote 25 above. [65] See footnote 60 above, 649. [66] See footnote 25 above. [67] See footnote 60 above, 649. [68] See footnote 25 above. [69] Nirmala Bonat v Yim Pek Ha & Anor [2015] MLJU 1878. [70] The Star. (2008, Nov 27). Nirmala Bonat case: Housewife found guilty, 18 years jail (updated). The Star. Retrieved from <https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2008/11/27/nirmala-bonat-case-housewife-found-guilty-18-years-jail-updated#:~:text=KUALA%20LUMPUR%3A%20Housewife%20Yim%20Pek,it%20with%20a%20steel%20mug>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [71] New Dehli Television Limited. (2010, Sep 20). Indonesian maid raped, beaten and scalded in Malaysia. New Dehli Television Limited. Retrieved from <https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/indonesian-maid-raped-beaten-and-scalded-in-malaysia-432200>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [72] Public Prosecutor v Murugan a/l Arumugam [2010] MLJU 2182. [73] Soo Ah Lai & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2015] 7 MLJ 649. [74] Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (Act 670) (Malaysia) s 13. [75] Public Prosecutor v Soh Chew Thong & Anor [2016] MLJU 1751. [76] Indramalar, S. (2018, Apr 6). Domestic workers continue to be abused until tougher laws can protect them. The Star. Retrieved from <https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/living/2018/04/06/domestic-workers-will-continue-to-be-abused-until-there-are-tougher-laws-to-protect-them>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [77] BBC News. (2018, Feb 14). 100 Women: Maid dies in Malaysia after being left to ‘sleep outside with dog’. BBC News. Retrieved from <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43049684>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [78] Astro Ulagam. (2019, Jun 21). Why the Woman Accused of Killing Adelina Was Released. Astro Ulagam. Retrieved from <https://astroulagam.com.my/lifestyle/article/93783/why-the-woman-accused-of-killing-adelina-was-released>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [79] See footnote 4 above, 56. [80] See footnote 31 above, 8. [81] See footnote 4 above, 56. [82] See footnote 4 above, 58. [83] See footnote 25 above. [84] See footnote 4 above, 58. [85] See footnote 4 above, 63. [86] See footnote 4 above, 58. [87] See footnote 4 above, 58. [88] See footnote 31 above, 15. [89] See footnote 25 above. [90] See footnote 25 above. [91] See footnote 25 above. [92] See footnote 31 above, 46. [93] Women’s Aid Organisation and Joint Action Group for Gender Equality. (2019). The Status of Women’s Human Rights: 24 Years of CEDAW in Malaysia. Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) and the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG), 92. Retrieved from <https://wao.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-Status-of-Womens-Human-Rights-24-Years-of-CEDAW-in-Malaysia.pdf>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [94] See footnote 93 above. [95] See footnote 4 above, 69. [96] See footnote 4 above, 70. [97] See footnote 4 above, 70. [98] Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). [99] International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, UNGA resolution 45/158 (1 July 2003, adopted 18 December 1990). [100] Trade Union Act 1959 (Act 262) (Malaysia). [101] Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Act 177) (Malaysia). [102] See footnote 31 above, 47. [103] Trade Union Act 1959 (Act 262) (Malaysia) s 35. [104] See footnote 31 above, 47. [105] See footnote 4 above, 81. [106] See footnote 25 above. [107] See footnote 25 above. [108] See footnote 4 above, 85. [109] See footnote 4 above, 85. [110] See footnote 4 above, 85. [111] See footnote 4 above, 93. [112] See footnote 15 above. [113] See footnote 61 above. [114] See footnote 36 above. [115] See footnote 61 above. [116] Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, opened for signature 18 December 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 (entered into force 3 September 1981). [117] See footnote 25 above. [118] See footnote 116 above. [119] See footnote 61 above. [120] See footnote 31 above, 9. [121] See footnote 10 above. [122] See footnote 31 above, 9. [123] Cheah, D. (2019, July 15). Proposed Employment (Domestic Employee) Regulations 2019. Donavan and Ho. Retrieved from <https://dnh.com.my/proposed-employment-domestic-employee-regulations-2019/>. Site accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [124] See footnote 36 above. [125] See footnote 31 above, 65. [126] United States Department of State. (2011, Jun 27). 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report – Malaysia. United States Department of State. Retrieved from <https://www.refworld.org/docid/4e12ee633c.html>. Site Accessed on 10 Oct 2020. [127] See footnote 60 above, 679.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |