Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Convention. For many years now, the Committee has been pursuing a dialogue with the Government regarding differences in treatment between nationals and foreign workers with respect to payment of social security benefits. The Committee had considered that the transfer of foreign workers working in the private sector from the Employees’ Social Security Scheme (ESS) to the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme was not in conformity with Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention as, under the new scheme, foreign workers were provided with a lump sum and no longer with a monthly payment. A review of the two schemes had also shown that the level of benefits in case of industrial accident provided under the ESS was substantially higher than that provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme.

The Committee regrets to note that the Government merely continues to state its main arguments for introducing the lump-sum system of payment, without giving elements of a detailed comparison of the benefits which would be awarded according to each system in identical circumstances.

The Committee trusts that the Government will make every effort to demonstrate in its next report that migrant workers do not receive treatment which is less favourable than that applied to nationals. It hopes in particular that the Government’s report will contain full information on the action taken to ensure that the lump sum corresponds to the actuarial equivalent of the periodical payments provided to nationals under the ESS, as well as information comparing the benefits which would be awarded according to each system in identical circumstances.

The Committee also refers the Government to the comments made under Convention No. 19 with respect to Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak.