The right to stay longer

Labour experts and local migrant worker’s rights groups have divided opinions as to whether new regulations reducing the number of days that non-resident migrant workers can stay in the MSAR after the termination of their contracts, breaches their labour rights, and is effective as a measure to reduce non-resident workers in the city.
In December of last year, the Labour Affairs Bureau (DSAL) and the Immigration Services Department of the Public Security Police Force (PSP) announced to local broadcaster TDM that the allowed stay period for non-resident migrant workers who leave their employment or have been fired, would be reduced from 10 days to 8 days.
In the case of non-resident temporary workers who have resided in the MSAR for less than six months, only a two-day stay period will be allowed.
The decision to reduce the stay period was contested by different migrant worker’s groups who consider that the previous stay time was already insufficient, and stated that they weren’t consulted before the decision was taken.
“We non-resident workers should be treated the same as local workers. We’re contributing to the economy of Macau and the eight-day visa is very discriminatory since it’s not enough for us to look for another employer, while the employer has plenty of time to find a replacement employee,” Emer de Lina, chairperson of Filipino migrant association Migrante Macau, told Business Daily.
In a response sent to Business Daily, the DSAL commented that the matter could only be commented on by the PSP, with the police authorities responding that: “the application of the deadline of not less than 2 or 8 days after the cancellation of his residence permit is only due to strict compliance with the provisions” of the Law regulation on Illegal Immigration and Expulsion.

Breach of rights
“The shortening of the period of stay for migrant workers after a termination of contract will certainly worsen their conditions. It is quite unimaginable that you are just allowed two days, if it is really the case, to pack up and leave. In some situations, you might not even be able to buy an air ticket in two days’ time,” Alex Choi Hang Heung, Assistant Professor of the Department of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau (UM), told Business Daily.
Under the Law for the Employment of Non-residential Workers, migrant workers who voluntarily quit their jobs are subjected to a six month ban from the MSAR, during which time a work permit can’t be provided, except if they can prove a legitimate reason for their decision to terminate their contract such as non-payment of wages or abusive treatment by employers.
According to Mr Alex Choi: “the shortening of the stay period will make [migrant workers] even more unwilling to report and leave an abusive work environment,” an argument already mentioned by Amnesty International as a critique to a similar policy implemented in Hong Kong.
For Anita Chan, Professor at the Australian National University and expert in labour issues in China, similar policies act as a “kind of control” of migrant workers, and would especially harm workers who reside in Macau under ‘broker schemes’.
“Usually these kind of migrant workers have to pay huge sums of money to be able to come to Macau, so if I have to pay US$2,000 (MOP16,000) to get a job in Macau, they will deduct that wage every month from my salary until I pay back the deposit. That binds them and allows mistreatment since they owe the agents money, and it’s very common all over the world,” stated Ms Chan.

Not that bad
For Melody Lu Chia-Wen, an Assistant Professor of the Department of Sociology of UM, migrant worker groups should contest the decision more on “moral grounds” than “employment rights grounds” since the right to residency after the termination of employment and the right to change employers are not recognized as basic human rights of migrants under the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
“I don’t think they should contest it as a labour rights issue. Labour rights are always tied to the contracts. If their contract terminates they’re no longer residents and not entitled to the same rights, which is a gap in the law unfortunately. I think it’s more of a moral issue. Employers should take into consideration these people already have social and family ties in Macau and that the awarded period is not enough to prepare before departing,” stated Ms Melody Lu.
For the sociology expert, of the countries that still practice guest worker schemes, the MSAR government is already “quite flexible” and “laissez-faire” since it allows migrant workers to enter with tourist visas and find work in certain sectors and change employers.
She also considers that in practical terms, termination tends to not be “unpleasant” with employers and employees tending to reach an agreement beneficial for both parties.
“The employer will negotiate with the worker to not terminate the contract immediately, which is advantageous for the employer too because it gives him more time to find a replacement. In some instances the employer has to pay the worker’s airfare to go back to his country so it’s advantageous for him if the worker stays in Macau,” notes Ms Lu.
“In practice, migrants and employers have developed many ways to bypass the current regulation and cutting short of the days would not make much difference,” she told Business Daily.
In fact, the UM professor points out that if the government intends to actually reduce the number of non-resident workers in the MSAR, reducing their stay after contract termination is “not an effective method of migration control” and could even be counter-productive and increase clandestine migration.


Not that effective
From the perspective of governance, the current tightening of control is the government’s response to residents’ long-term demands to reduce the number of migrant workers. “A more effective way to reduce non-resident workers would be to tie the worker’s contract to an employer. In other countries the blue card is tied to only one employer and if they want to change their job they have to fly back to their home country,” notes Ms. Lu.
“However this measure ends up being only good for the government and not good for employers or employees, so I don’t think employers would go for it,” she states.
The total number of non-resident workers in Macau amounted to 177,897 as at the end of November 2016, down by 4,349 workers or 2.4 per cent from the same month last year, the latest official data released by the Labour Affairs Bureau (DSAL) shows.


Neighbours not much better
An Amnesty International dispatch from 2014 previously criticised a similar immigration policy implemented in Hong Kong, the New Condition of Stay also known as the Two-Week Rule, which mandates migrant domestic workers are required to ‘find new employment and obtain an approved work visa within two weeks of the expiration or premature termination of their employment contract’ after which they are required to leave the city.
According to the report, the two-week limit ‘leaves migrant domestic workers with little choice but to remain in abusive and/or exploitative conditions or accept jobs with unfavourable work conditions in order to maintain their immigration status’ while not leaving them enough time to challenge termination decisions in court.


Not migrant workers’ rights groups
The decision to reduce the stay period was contested by different migrant workers groups who considered they weren’t consulted before the decision was taken.
In its response to Business Daily, the Public Security Police Force (PSP) stated that four of the ‘most popular associations’ of Macau participated in the consultative meetings with the ‘majority’ of the representatives ‘agreeing with the idea’.
According to the PSP, the associations present at the consultative meeting were the Association of Employment Agencies of China (Macau), the Macau Overseas Worker Employment Agency Association, Macau Myanmar Human Resources Agency Federation and Macau Domestic Service’s Employer Union.
However labour experts have stated to Business Daily that most of the mentioned associations seem to be ‘broker(s)’ or agencies specialising in bringing foreign labour to the MSAR, and not migrant workers’ rights associations.