Elias, Juanita.

Gendered political economy and the politics of migrant worker rights: the view from
South-East Asia. Australian Journal of International Affairs 54.1 (2010): 70-85.
Southeast asia, definition of labor as productive behavior. women oftern work in house
Devadason, Evelyn Shyamala and Chan Wai Meng, Policies and Laws Regulating Migrant Workers in
Malaysia: A Critial appraisal. Journal of Contemporary Asia 44.1 (2014): 19-35

Southeast Asian countries has a long standing tradition of discrimination and prejudice against women,
and this point of view is widespread across all aspects of living, particularly work and employment. As
developed nations employ offshoring and hiring immigrants in developing countries as a means of
cutting costs and increase profits, concerns are raised over the working conditions that female migrant
workers have to face and how can the situation be improved for them. This literature review will
examine and review the points put forward by Juanita Elias in her article Gendered political economy
and the politics of migrant worker rights: the view from southe-East Asia and Devadason, Evelyn
Shyamala and Chan Wai Meng in their article Policies and Laws Regulating Migrant Workers in
Malaysia: A Critial appraisal.
In her article, Juanita discuss the disadvantages that woman migrant workers, particularly those
migrating to Malaysia and Singapore, have to face. She then critique the efforts advanced by
organizations and activists trying to fix these issues. Juanita points out that the majority of female
migrant workers end up doing housework in local families. The problems that they have to suffer in
this working environment is in essence violations of labor rights, including non- and underpayment of
wages, long hours of work ... violence suffered at the hands of an employer or other household
member (74). Juanita went on to point out the flaws in the initiatives led by organizations in
improving the conditions of women domestic workers. International bodies such as the ILO has
adopted a right-based approach and promoted trade unions in solving the problems of workers,
however, these tools are useless when applied to the case of immigrant domestic workers as they fail to
incorporate the female aspect and household work aspect into the CLS. On the bottom up side,
movements have been conducted to demand for inclusion of work in the household into the category of
work that are under labor protection regulation. Nevertheless, these advances have been faced with
interference and oppression from governments.

In comparison, in their article, Devadason, Evelyn and Chan delve into the problems that migrant
labourers run into when working in Malaysia. They also go into the causes of the issue, blaming the
government policy and various stakeholders in the immigrant field. The authors state that immigrant
workers in Malaysia are subject to frequent amendments to policies, low wages, lack of employee
benefit. These issues are attributable first to inconsistent attitude of the government, as they want to
limit dependency of the countrys economy on immigrants by constraining their number, but at the
same time are tempted by the attractive investments provided by transnational firms on the condition of
cheap labour: deportations and migration bans are quickly followed with return migration and lifting
of those bans (20). Another source of mistreatment comes from abusive practices of stakeholders
relevant to the immigration process, including recruitment agencies, immigration officials and
employers (28). In addition, the authors briefly mention women immigrant workers and issues they
encounter, including low remuneration, long working hours and recorded abuses.
Both articles agree that woman immigrant workers suffer from the poor working conditions in
Southeast Asean countries, and various stakeholders are involved in this situation, as in the case of
Juanita where international organizations such as ILO or UNIFEM, local activist groups and local
governements (Singapore and Malaysia) are parts of the equation, or in the case of Devadason, Evelyn
and Chan, the Malaysia government, other instituions related in the immigration processes, employers
and other work-related organizations all contribute to the problem of isolation, overwork,
underpayment and violence that these migrant labourers have to face. Both groups of author observe
the situations in specific nations in Southeast Asia, Juaniata with Singapore and Malaysia (and in some
parts Philipine and Indonesia) and and Devadason et al. with Malaysia. Both groups put the blame on
authoritarian governments as a major force preventing movements and changes in favour of
marginalized domestic workers: state policies and practices that prevent migrant workers from
forming associations and unions. Albeit both articles are structured as theorical studies, there are
several differences in the approach of the two. Fisrtly, the tone of the two articles are contrasting. In
Juanita case, she is mostly praising efforts made by stakeholders (except for the government) in order
to improve the situation of women migrant workers, as opposed to Devadason et al. who are critical of
the irresponsibility of the management system as well as the abusive practices of related parties.
Secondly, regarding the scope of the two articles, Juanita covers a broader range of sample,
investigating Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philipine to ebstablish the problem with state
authorities in protecting immigrant domestic workers, while Devadason et al. focus specifically on
Malaysia and the issues associated with migratory stakeholders. Therefore, Juanita article focus on a

regional context rather than state context compared to Devadason et al., and appears more
generalizable.
Thirdly, the two groups figure out different causes of the harsh conditions that women have to face.
Juanita emphasizes the widespread misconception of the two dichotomy productive/reproductive,
especially among the ruling class, as the root issue that prevents right-based activism in favor of
female immigrants from succeeding. The popsular bias towards productive activities performed mainly
by men and the neglect of womens contribution to the economy through their reproductive activities
such as childbirth and housecare. With that understanding, housework or care, which is a reproductive
activity, is not considered work compared to other activities that are productive in their nature, and
houses not considered to be a working environment. Consequentially, regulations regardings rights and
benefits of immigrant labourer fail to cover immigrant domestic workers, houses are not a place where
rights abuses can take place and rights themselves can be claimed. In contrast, Devadason et al.
points up the role of purposeful behaviors of the government and various stakeholders, including
citizens as the driving force behind the miserable working conditions. Domestic workers are the most
frequently violated targets, are unprotected and discriminated by trade unions and subject to
profiteering activities of various organizations such as insurance companies, employers and recruitment
agencies . If it werent thanks to external pressures, in particular measures by labor exporting
countries to restrict the outflows of their workers (21) and threats of divesment from the country by
foreign firms due to labor costs, these cases would not be gaining the attention of the Malaysian
government (21) and forces stakeholders to reduce their discrimination practices against these
workers. In other words, in one case the problem is due to limited understanding of social reproduction
and

in the other, due to a widespread discriminatory attitude against immigrant arising from

misperceptions of their role.

Finally, as to the solution to this problem, Juanita proposes an outside in approach. She praises the
potential of regional migration networks and women activist groups in improving the condition, as well
as suggesting activities to focus on undermining the top-down misconception/discrimination against
the care and social reproduction industry. On the contrary, Devadason et al., using an inside-out
method, call on the government to perform its duty in managing migrant workers and monitoring the
behaviors of stakeholders involved in the immigration area. However, this suggestion is likely to be
futile as even when they offer the solution, evidence of the irresponsibility of the government is
presented: inspections in the manufacturing sector declined by 78% from 2007 to 2008 (32). In

fact, relying on the government to acts on its own is useless, as only international and regional
pressures can force a discriminatory system to act against its will.
In conclusion, both groups provide insights into the discriminations that women immigrant workers are
faced and their causes. Juanita, by utilizing a theoretical framework of productive-reproductive
relationships, offer a thorough analysis of the reason for discriminatory practices against women
domestic workers in Singapore and Malaysia, while Devadason et al. only touch slightly on the subject
of women worker discrimination. The solution offered by Juanita is also more realistic and convincing,
therefore, her article provides a stronger analysis.