Although the reopening of the Israeli market for our workers is unreservedly excellent news, GON sending them itself is a repugnant idea. Ministers, I am told, want to mine gold from it.
Worse, they are eager to remove the ceiling of fees manpower agencies can charge Nepali migrant workers. They argue that doing so would prevent the agencies from extracting any fee. If GON prohibits such fees altogether, that would be most welcome. But the real purpose, a knowledgeable source told me, is that ministers want to fleece the Israel-bound workers quietly.
They also want to pave the way for the agencies to extract as much money as they want and for minister to get a handsome cut. It could be an unholy collusion of ministers and manpower agencies.You know what government says and does are two different things. Remember the embryo protection provision in the Muluki Ain? The law was adopted to allow abortion of embryo, not to protect it.
It applies not only to those who go to Israel but also to more than two million Nepali workers working in the Middle East, Malaysia, South Korea, and other countries. Manpower agencies have sent virtually all of them charging a sky-high fee. In return, they have offered the workers no protection.
Consequently, Nepali migrant workers are left in lurch if the employer changes job description, place of employment, pay scale and other terms of contract.
However, it has begun to change under the pressure of a shrinking pool of manpower in sending countries, rising demand in receiving nations, and growing international concern about violation of human rights of migrant workers in the latter states. Employers in the receiving lands have started to offer better pay, improved accommodation, expenses for visa and transportation, etc. to migrant workers.
And yet, manpower agencies have not stopped siphoning off such improved pay and benefits, leaving the workers in a precarious condition.
This needs to change. Is GON the right agency to select and send workers abroad? As its decision regarding manpower supply to Israel shows, it believes it is. In several other countries—from India and China to Norway and Sweden—governments have been reasonably good change agents, some better than other. But my friends believe GON is not in that league yet.
Once I asked several friends to point to me a few things GON had "done well." They racked up their brains and said that while GON had done many things—from education and health to transportation and communication sectors—there was nothing it had "done well."
Since I have been out of country for some time, I cannot judge GON performance first-hand. But if news reports are to be believed, the situation has gone from bad to worse.
For instance, according to Transparency International (TI), corruption has increased. Our development partners are so frustrated with politicized bidding, appointments, and project implementation that some have threatened to pull out. Crimes have increased. Growth has slowed. GON has overspent on travel and treatment and underspent its development budget. It cannot arrest murderers who roam free.
What's more, corruption in the political sector—again according to TI—is much higher now. In this situation, why should we believe that GON will do better than manpower agencies?
I am afraid that if GON sends Nepali workers to Israel on its own, the Jewish state will soon close its market to our nationals. You know what happens when the criminal, the jury and the judge is the same person or agency. GON will dispatch workers to Israel, and regulate and monitor their work. One might argue that there are checks and balances—the Supreme Court and other courts, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the Public Service Commission, etc.
But have they been effective? No. Do the Nepali migrant workers have time and resources to have their grievances redressed by these independent agencies? No. It requires years and tons of money to get justice through these institutions. Several years ago I had met a woman in her 80s in front of the Kathmandu District Court. She had been fighting a property case for 50 years.
Besides, the justice such agencies provide does not hurt the culprit much. You cannot fine or jail ministers easily, as you can a manpower agent; if you do, they become hero when they are released. Nor can you shut down the Ministry of Labor if its officials exploit migrant workers, as you could a manpower agency.
Coming back to the supply of Nepali workers to Israel, the best course would have been to inject life into the moribund regulatory oversight of manpower agencies and let them continue recruiting and sending qualified Nepali workers, which they can do better than GON.
In addition, it would save Nepal from several ignominies. First, if GON bungled up and Israel shut its doors again, it would be nearly impossible to reopen it. This time, GON blamed manpower agencies. Next time, it will have no scapegoat; that convenient cushion will be gone.
Second, the employer in the Jewish state may drag GON to court in Tel Aviv if it flouts the terms of employment while sending Nepali workers. Third, GON can prevent ministers and bureaucrats from profiteering from the hapless workers.
Fourth, and more broadly, GON will not be hauled over the coal for ditching the market, seeking to restore the "commanding heights" of the economy that were dismantled by privatization and liberalization, and strangling the private sector that has been creating jobs and wealth. No, we do not need the overbearing and ham-handed state to squeeze the economy's throat again.
I will be happily proven wrong. But prima facie, GON itself sending Nepali workers to Israel is an extremely fishy and outdated idea. It will augment state control, discourage the private sector, make the redress of migrant worker grievances more difficult, increase political and bureaucratic corruption, and result in the selection of unqualified political workers leading to the eventual closure of Israeli market for Nepali workers.
Such revanchist longing of King Gyanendra destroyed monarchy. It could destroy the lucrative Israeli market for our migrant workers.
The author is with the International Hotel Group in London
Related story
Signs you have a ‘bad’ boss
