Download - IMPACT Magazine Online!

COVER
STORY
intergovernmental agencies and leading international human
rights, church, labor, migrant and women’s organizations.
The Steering Committee’s activities at international and national
levels in order to publicize and raise awareness of the
Convention through the Global Campaign led to a salutary
increase in the number of ratifications and signatures.
It is worth nothing that the 29 States parties are principally
sending States, although
some of them are also transit
and receiving States. None of
the major receiving States has
ratified the Convention. When
we consider the geographical
distribution of the States parties,
we note that 12 are from Africa,
9 from Latin America and the
Caribbean, 7 from Asia, and 1
from Central and Eastern Europe.
Another 15 States have signed but
not ratified the Convention. As of
May 2005, no Western State has
signed or ratified the Convention,
although some of them were
actively involved in the Convention’s
drafting process.
Obstacles to Ratification
This brings us to the question of the possible obstacles
to ratification. How is it that the Convention has met with
so little enthusiasm by States, including those States who
are usually quick to champion human rights? UNESCO has
carried out several interesting studies on this matter.
Firstly, it is obvious that the contents of one or other
provision may be unacceptable to some States, for instance
because it would give rights that would go beyond its capacities.
Fortunately, the Convention itself has foreseen
the possibility of entering reservations to the application
of certain articles. This obstacle is therefore one that can
be overcome by a careful study of the compatibility of the
domestic legislation with the rights contained in the Convention,
and the drafting of pertinent
reservations.
Secondly, the Convention has
given rise to many misconceptions.
One of the common misconceptions
is the often expressed opinion
that the Convention favors irregular
migration. It is clear from the
text of the Convention that it does
not and that, on the contrary, the
concept of giving rights to irregular
migrant workers was inspired
not only by the basic principle of
respect for the dignity of all human
beings, but also by the desire to
discourage recourse by employers
to irregular labor by making it
much less advantageous, as unequivocally expressed in the
preamble of the Convention.
Thirdly, many countries fear the high cost of developing
an infrastructure for the implementation of the Convention.
The Convention is a long and complex instrument that provides
many rights in different fields, and the implementation
thereof consequently involves many government departments,
coordination of which may not be an easy task. It
is illustrative in this respect that none of the States parties
© ishamaec.wordpress.com
By Fr. Edwin Corros, CS
Joven de la Cruz (not his real name)
was a former overseas Filipino
worker (OFW) from Antipolo, Rizal.
He has sought the assistance of the
Episcopal Commission on Migrants and
Itinerant People (ECMI), complaining
of harassment from the lending agency
that paid his placement fee to get a job
in Taiwan as a factory worker. He was
repatriated when the factory where he
was employed temporarily cut down its
operations due to lesser demand of IT
products in United States and Europe
because of global economic recession.
Afraid of being jailed for not paying his
debts, he sought ECMI’s help.
When he arrived in Taiwan in March
2008, De la Cruz did not find anything
unusual about his employment. Three
months later, his employer announced
that the factory will operate only thrice
a week. This meant that Joven and
other foreign migrant workers would
only work three days weekly, hence, will
also receive a salary that was equivalent
to the three-day job. The company’s
management had explained that it could
not afford to pay all the workers due
to the low demand of their company’s
product. With his salary cut into almost
half of his initial monthly wage, Joven
had to face the consequence of being
unable to pay his debts arising from the
placement fee he had borrowed in the
Philippines. Added to this burden, the
workers also had to pay their board and
lodging on days they were not working.
This unexpected turn of events came as
a big blow to Joven and his co-workers.
All they could do was to wait for their
condition to improve.
Few weeks later, the company offered
the migrant workers the possibility
of repatriation with a free airline ticket.
Realizing that he had just been working
without saving, plus the fact that
his salary was not enough to pay his
debts, Joven had immediately accepted
the offer. Before leaving Taiwan he was
asked to sign a document implying he
had resigned from work. Although he
was not sure of the consequence of
such decision, he decided to sign the
document because he did not have
the chance to seek help from the
Manila Economic and Cultural Office
(MECO) in Taipei, the Philippines de
facto embassy.
A month after his arrival in the country,
Joven started receiving a statement
of account from the lending company
that paid his placement fee for Taiwan.
He called up the lending company explaining
why he was not able to pay his
debt. Unfortunately, after explaining his
incapacity to pay, he received a stronger
letter demanding that he pay his debts
including accumulated interests and
surcharges or else he will be brought to
court. It was this threat of being jailed
that brought Joven to seek ECMI’s help
through the Antipolo Diocesan Commission
for Migrants.
The case of Joven is a usual
example how some overseas Filipino
20
IMPACT • February 2010