160
Abeyasekera
addition to self-employment schemes must be offered to young returning migrants to enable them to continue to be productive citizens.
Policy Environment The Sri Lanka Foreign Employment Bureau Act is driven by a vision of Sri Lanka as “a provider of a globally employable competitive human capital” (Dias and Jayasundere 2004:153). The act promotes migration, but the protection of rights does not feature in its main text. Moreover, migration is seen as a safety valve for unemployment in a country where the government does not seem to be taking responsibility for employment creation. In contrast, the Philippines, despite its huge migrant labor force, still promotes national employment as a first option. The protection of migrants is the main focus of the Filipino act on foreign employment; its objective is to “institute policies of overseas employment and establish a higher standard of protection of the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress,” and it makes a commitment to providing “adequate and timely social, economic, and legal services” (Maznavi 2003:2). The SLBFE has a compulsory registration scheme that includes an insurance scheme that covers contingencies like medical or other emergencies that may compel a worker to return home; 70 percent of all migrants register before departure. Workers who migrate without registering are not eligible for protection under the act (Dias and Jayasundere 2004:162). The amount of insurance paid to migrant workers in 2004 was SL Rs 52,562,832. The SLBFE also provides self-employment loans, scholarship schemes for migrant workers’ children, and distribution of school equipment (SLBFE 2005). Other interventions include the establishment of safe houses in certain Middle Eastern countries and loan schemes by state banks to prevent exploitation by money lenders. However, the government does not regulate or monitor the fees levied by employment agencies on migrant hopefuls, who spend close to SL Rs 100,000 to obtain a job. Training facilities for migrants are available almost exclusively to women, demonstrating the protectionist and paternalistic stance of both the state and the NGO sectors, which have promoted opportunities for women without giving much consideration to the vulnerability of men. Predeparture training and certification is compulsory for women migrants seeking employment as housemaids. There are currently 29 training centers, 22 of which are run by the SLBFE; the other 7 are run by private organizations. Of the training centers offering training for sewing machine operators, only one is open to men (Dias and Jayasundere 2004:162).