Reconfigure

Our policy on sending out Filipinos to work as domestic helpers abroad is similar to the US policy on guns: we make tragedy inevitable and then hope the worst will not happen.

American gun enthusiasts invoke some arcane guarantee about the right of citizens to bear arms to allow guns to proliferate with hardly any control. The strong gun lobby, heavy campaign contributors during election years, ensures the proliferation continues.

The arms industry is happy with the present gun ownership regime. A few far-right groups have organized into heavily armed militias, threatening any government attempt to strip them of their guns. Only in the US can one buy an assault rifle over the counter.

Another school shooting happened in Florida the other day. Dozens such incidents occurred the past few years. Yet the gun enthusiasts want us to believe each was an isolated case.

The rest of the world is appalled at the utter insanity of the gun ownership regime in the US. But we are more appalled at the inability of the US Congress to pass tougher laws to rein in the cult of guns among Americans.

In the wake of the latest school shooting, we hear loud condemnation. But no less than a member of the US Congress predicts no real action will be taken to tighten procedures for gun ownership.

With Trump at the White House and the Republicans in control of both houses of the US Congress, the chances for any drastic change in the gun ownership regime are pretty slim.

Domestics

For many years, after so many deaths and so many stories of abuse, several proposals have been made for the Philippine government to curtail deployment of domestic workers – especially to countries where protection of foreign workers is weak and cases of abuse high.

Our migrant workers deployed as domestics are particularly vulnerable. In Middle Eastern cultures, they are received into homes not as employees but practically as slaves. Employers treat them as property, confiscate their travel documents, work them around the clock and restrict their diets. The working conditions are usually unspeakable.

Toots Ople, tireless advocate for our migrant workers, insists we reconfigure our policies governing labor migration. We should push for higher quality and better jobs abroad. That means we should drastically cut back on the export of domestic service workers.

That is a wise proposal. In fact, it has been on the table for years.

We must not let labor migration be completely demand-driven. We should encourage Filipinos wanting to work abroad to be choosier about what jobs they take. As a matter of policy, curtail labor migration to countries like Kuwait that refuse to sign bilateral agreements to ensure protection of our workers. As a matter of policy, too, we should allow domestics to go abroad only if the host country’s government takes responsibility for vetting the potential employers.

The abovementioned is easier said than done. Many domestics make it to jobs abroad using tourist visas to skirt around our own controls. This is why so many of them end up as undocumented workers.

Also, Filipinos wanting to work abroad resist government interference about where they may or may not go and what jobs they may accept. They want the choice to be entirely theirs. It is a matter of right.

Since it is not government that directly exports labor, the authorities are hard put to define the composition of our overseas labor force. Without jobs to offer at home, government has no leverage with which to shape our army of migrant workers.

Once before, we imposed a ban on our workers deploying to what was then war-torn Iraq.  Filipinos made it there anyway, travelling through third countries to accept attractive job offers. A Filipino worker was captured by Iraqi insurgents who threatened to behead him unless the Philippines withdrew from the US-led coalition forces. We left the coalition, head bowed in shame.

Up to ten million Filipinos work abroad. That is a large labor force difficult for government to reshape.

Ban

There is now a ban in place for Filipinos wanting to work in Kuwait. That country’s record for protecting guest workers is pretty dismal.

President Duterte’s strong reaction to the discovery of the refrigerated remains of a Filipina domestic worker enjoys near-universal support at home. For the President, this is a matter of national honor and dignity.

The outrage over this murder of a Filipina provides our diplomatic establishment a moment of grace. Our diplomats must plunge headlong to negotiate bilateral agreements with host countries to better protect our workers.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) must show some energy in this regard. To date, the DFA’s response has been tepid at best.

The low-energy diplomatic response is disappointing. Surely, Foreign Secretary Alan Cayateno could do better.

We should send all our ambassadors out to press for fresh agreements ensuring better protection of our workers. While it is true we depend on employment opportunities for our people, with insistent diplomacy we can make just demands for their protection.

It is not true beggars cannot be choosers. We have a President ready and willing to unload a large dose of cusswords against foreign governments unwilling to yield to better protection of our workers.

Let us seize this moment of just indignation to win a better deal for our workers – even if we court a massive repatriation of OFWs. Once this moment passes, we will return to our old obsequious posture towards countries that host our workers.