COLOMBO, Oct 2 (OneWorld) - While thousands of Sri Lankan workers in the Middle East, mainly housemaids, who are victims of abuse and exploitation by employers, wait to return home, the government is yet to sign an employment agreement with any of the countries in this region.

According to statistics available with the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE), the number of stranded workers during the first eight months of this year, totalled 1492, up from 1327 in 2002.

About 85 percent of them left their workplaces due to physical harassment or non-payment of salary.

While the largest number of non-skilled Sri Lankans work in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Lebanon, the government has so far signed an employment agreement only with Malaysia.

In contrast with just 10,000 Sri Lankans working in Malaysia, according to SLBFE, about 420,000 Sri Lankans work in Saudi Arabia, followed by 180,000 in Kuwait.

The UAE employs 150,000 workers and Lebanon employs 80,000, while there are 40,000 each in Jordan and Qatar.

In the absence of bilateral agreements with West Asian countries, the government is spending alot of money to bring back stranded foreign employment seekers sheltering in Sri Lankan missions there.

In just three years, the SLBFE has spent US $3.5 million to repatriate those stranded.

Says President of the Association of Licensed Foreign Employment Agencies (ALFEA) Suraj Dandeniya, "Its preposterous that the government is spending so much money while it has completely downplayed the importance of signing agreements with these countries. That would have forced employers to be more responsible."

He adds that the government's failure to sign bilateral agreements with these countries is a major impediment in promoting employment.

Complains Dandeniya, "The government uses flimsy excuses to postpone the signing of these agreements. Its failure to sign a MoU with these countries has made migrant employees vulnerable to harassment and ill treatment by employers."

Foreign remittance from migrant workers, particularly housemaids, remains the country's largest single net foreign exchange earner.

Interestingly, foreign employment placements rose by about 20,000 from 184,000 in 2001 to about 204,000 in 2002 - the highest annual increase in the recent past. Normalization of air travel facilities and promotional campaigns by private job agents and government institutions contributed to the spurt.

Most of those seeking jobs abroad happen to be women, amounting to 65 percent of the total. Housemaids comprise 53 percent of this figure.

Remarks Kamal Tillekaratne, who recently returned from the UAE where he was working as a supervisor in a private firm for the past 13 years, "Things have improved over the years, but our Ministry of Labor and Employment does not render enough assistance to stranded house maids and other employees."

He adds that, "Even labor welfare officers become helpless when dealing with employers, due to the latter's high handed attitude."

Tillekaratne feels bilateral agreements between the two countries are the only remedy for this situation.

Agrees Lalith Bopitiya, Acting Manager of the SLBFE, "Apart from the agreements we have also advised embassies to blacklist foreign employment agencies against which there are regular complaints. We have already compiled such lists and local agencies have been warned not to accept offers from them."

The most common grievance is low salaries, with a sizeable percentage of maids earning less than what they were promised earlier. While the government's minimum salary scale for a housemaid stands at US $125, a large percentage earn only US $100, most of which is spent on disputes.

Says Dandeniya, "The SLBFE should tell these workers the truth, that they will get only US $100. Deceiving people just to lure them to go abroad has created big problems."

Take the case of S.A. Imran, 29, who went to Kuwait in 2001 through a registered job agency in Sri Lanka.

He was employed as a private driver, but was paid only for the first two months. The hapless man worked another eight months expecting to be paid, but his employer refused to do so.

Finally, in March 2002, Imran approached the Sri Lankan embassy in Kuwait, where he was given accommodation in a suffocating hall, crammed with 300 other workers.

Recalls Imran with a shudder, " The majority of inmates were housemaids, some of whom were suffering from various diseases. It was like hell."

Imran lived there for three weeks waiting to come back to Sri Lanka. Finally he had to beg one of his friends working there to pay his return fare.

COLOMBO, Oct 2 (OneWorld) - While thousands of Sri Lankan workers in the Middle East, mainly housemaids, who are victims of abuse and exploitation by employers, wait to return home, the government is yet to sign an employment agreement with any of the countries in this region.

According to statistics available with the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE), the number of stranded workers during the first eight months of this year, totalled 1492, up from 1327 in 2002.

About 85 percent of them left their workplaces due to physical harassment or non-payment of salary.

While the largest number of non-skilled Sri Lankans work in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Lebanon, the government has so far signed an employment agreement only with Malaysia.

In contrast with just 10,000 Sri Lankans working in Malaysia, according to SLBFE, about 420,000 Sri Lankans work in Saudi Arabia, followed by 180,000 in Kuwait.

The UAE employs 150,000 workers and Lebanon employs 80,000, while there are 40,000 each in Jordan and Qatar.

In the absence of bilateral agreements with West Asian countries, the government is spending alot of money to bring back stranded foreign employment seekers sheltering in Sri Lankan missions there.

In just three years, the SLBFE has spent US $3.5 million to repatriate those stranded.

Says President of the Association of Licensed Foreign Employment Agencies (ALFEA) Suraj Dandeniya, "Its preposterous that the government is spending so much money while it has completely downplayed the importance of signing agreements with these countries. That would have forced employers to be more responsible."

He adds that the government's failure to sign bilateral agreements with these countries is a major impediment in promoting employment.

Complains Dandeniya, "The government uses flimsy excuses to postpone the signing of these agreements. Its failure to sign a MoU with these countries has made migrant employees vulnerable to harassment and ill treatment by employers."

Foreign remittance from migrant workers, particularly housemaids, remains the country's largest single net foreign exchange earner.

Interestingly, foreign employment placements rose by about 20,000 from 184,000 in 2001 to about 204,000 in 2002 - the highest annual increase in the recent past. Normalization of air travel facilities and promotional campaigns by private job agents and government institutions contributed to the spurt.

Most of those seeking jobs abroad happen to be women, amounting to 65 percent of the total. Housemaids comprise 53 percent of this figure.

Remarks Kamal Tillekaratne, who recently returned from the UAE where he was working as a supervisor in a private firm for the past 13 years, "Things have improved over the years, but our Ministry of Labor and Employment does not render enough assistance to stranded house maids and other employees."

He adds that, "Even labor welfare officers become helpless when dealing with employers, due to the latter's high handed attitude."

Tillekaratne feels bilateral agreements between the two countries are the only remedy for this situation.

Agrees Lalith Bopitiya, Acting Manager of the SLBFE, "Apart from the agreements we have also advised embassies to blacklist foreign employment agencies against which there are regular complaints. We have already compiled such lists and local agencies have been warned not to accept offers from them."

The most common grievance is low salaries, with a sizeable percentage of maids earning less than what they were promised earlier. While the government's minimum salary scale for a housemaid stands at US $125, a large percentage earn only US $100, most of which is spent on disputes.

Says Dandeniya, "The SLBFE should tell these workers the truth, that they will get only US $100. Deceiving people just to lure them to go abroad has created big problems."

Take the case of S.A. Imran, 29, who went to Kuwait in 2001 through a registered job agency in Sri Lanka.

He was employed as a private driver, but was paid only for the first two months. The hapless man worked another eight months expecting to be paid, but his employer refused to do so.

Finally, in March 2002, Imran approached the Sri Lankan embassy in Kuwait, where he was given accommodation in a suffocating hall, crammed with 300 other workers.

Recalls Imran with a shudder, " The majority of inmates were housemaids, some of whom were suffering from various diseases. It was like hell."

Imran lived there for three weeks waiting to come back to Sri Lanka. Finally he had to beg one of his friends working there to pay his return fare.

This is an invitation for all big hearted Sri Lankans
from the Royal College Red Cross team ; join us on
june in our blood donation campaign and make a difference!

with love and peace,

Udara

By Joshua Shelov

Once upon a time the king came down to the village and told the villagers that there was a monster living across the sea. The king said that an army had to be assembled, to bring across the sea to kill the monster. Most of the villagers immediately volunteered their children for the king's army. A few pretended to be childless.

One of the villagers was on the fence. This villager was an old soldier, who had spent many years of his life in battle. The old soldier was a good judge of character, and he knew the toll of war. He looked deeply into the eyes of the king and saw a man untested by the temperature of battle. The old soldier wondered if there really was a monster living across the sea.

The king saw the old soldier's hesitation and approached him. The king asked him if he had any children. The old soldier said that he had only one: a daughter. The king asked him to volunteer his daughter for the army.

The old soldier said, "I understand that there are times when brave men and women must stand up and fight. But my daughter is the only thing I love in this world. So I must ask you to make me a promise. Is there really a monster living across the sea?"

The king said: "I will give you my most solemn vow: I will personally bring back the head of the monster to this very village."

So the old soldier gave the king his only daughter. As they departed, the king assured the old soldier that he would not place a weapon in his daughter's hands. Instead, he would place her in charge of the prisoners. With that, they left the village, and went off to war.

A year later, the king returned to the village, bringing with him the old soldier's daughter. The king presented her to her father. Then the king began to leave.

The old soldier stopped the king, and reminded him of his promise. "Where is the head of the monster?" asked the old soldier. But the king departed without answering. The old soldier and his daughter were left alone.

The old soldier was a good judge of character, and he knew the toll of war. He looked deeply into the eyes of his daughter, and, in a sharp, sudden whisper, his heart told him that the king had kept his promise.


Joshua Shelov is a writer living in New York City. His screenplay "Hooligans" was recently filmed in London, starring Elijah Wood.

By Kevin Dawson

When a few soldiers discovered Saddam Hussein holed up in a, uh, hole, it wasn't spoken of as "the action of a few soldiers." Nope, their Commander in Chief was right there accepting kudos; his fellow conservatives continue to fill the "liberal media" with self-praise about how "we" captured Saddam.

When a few soldiers rough up Iraqi POWs, however, it's nothing more than the action of a few soldiers. Rush Limbaugh even dismissed it as "a fraternity prank." After all, it was only a minor indiscretion; no big-league criminal offense like having consensual sex with an intern. But actual fraternities have lost their charters for less.

Donald Rumsfeld, whose apologetic testimony has resulted in his virtually being apologized to for having had to be put through all this, has warned that worse images will turn up. Really? If this was only a few isolated incidents perpetrated by a handful of mischievous boys who probably just had too much sugar for breakfast that morning?

At least Rummy has the perfect damage control: all he has to do to prove he's not a capricious Iraqi-torturer is whip out that 1983 photo of him shaking hands with his pal Saddam Hussein. (If it were Madeline Albright - not that it ever would have been - she'd be so fired now.)

Chances are that our great leader, who only a year ago stood on the bow of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, did his little victory dance, and declared the "major combat" in Iraq "over," won't be upstaging the troops to take bows for Abu Ghraib, the blame for which is still, pardon the pun, up for ghraibs. (Can they find a way to pin this one on Bill Clinton somehow? Tune in tomorrow.)

Time alone will tell whether his unprecedented apology amounts to anything more than "I said I was sorry, okay?" or the corporate, "We regret your inconvenience," - which, you'll notice, assumes no responsibility for whatever blunder on their part is causing your inconvenience. On the campaign trail, will Bush express genuine sorrow and regret? O will he say, "Yeah, but look what the war's done for the economy!"

The public has registered its shame and disgust at the images, even those who previously had accused the media of "comforting the enemy" by publishing photos of American coffins (presumably the same way that Memorial Day, which is coming up, comforts the enemy), and "liberal spin" by reporting the daily death count of American soldiers, as if it were a lie or an exaggeration.

Well, then, by that same logic, the photo of the naked POW on the floor tethered to a dog leash should be a little morale booster, shouldn't it? Look what's gonna happen to you if you tangle with us Amurricuns! We go' whoop yo' butt good, son! After all, it's evidence that "we" are winning the war, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden, who by all accounts is most directly responsible for 9/11, far from quaking in his sandals at so much evidence of American Might, is offering gold rewards for the furtherance of his agenda.

Interestingly, accounts of horrors and abuse suffered by American prisoners in American prisons is typically met by the public with "Oh, boo hoo! They're in jail to be punished, not to have a good time." Actually, simply being there is the punishment.

Conservatives want us to believe that the American justice system is so clean-cut - virtue vs. evil, us (good guys) vs. them (bad guys) - so why is there no public satisfaction over the atrocities of Abu Ghraib? After all, it's different when we do it. (Conservatives are the experts at this kind of moral duplicity: Democrats "lie," Republicans "misspeak"; Democrats "commit crimes," Republicans "make mistakes.")

How much you want to bet that Mel Gibson's father doesn't believe that the Abu Ghraib atrocities even happened?