An answer to ‘Saudization’
In truth we have had more than 30 years to “prepare” for the avalanche of bad news emanating from the Middle East (specifically Saudi Arabia) and Northern Africa (specifically Libya).
The bad news trickled first from Libya, where escalating conflict between local rebels and Nato forces and Libyan forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi have put thousands of Filipino workers there at risk. Already, dramatic TV footage has shown Pinoy workers fleeing their homes and places of work amid gunfire and street fighting to board ships and planes bound for the Philippines.
Even more alarming is the news from Saudi Arabia, where more than a million OFWs work as domestics, construction workers, nurses and doctors, and as other professionals. It was Saudi Arabia, in fact, which was one of the first destinations for Filipino workers so much so that “Saudi” has become shorthand for any foreign destination for a migrant worker.
Lately, the Saudi government has put in place a policy called “Nitaqat” or Saudization, meant to encourage the employment of more Saudi Arabians by private firms. This may in part be prompted by rising unemployment among Saudi youths, with some reports stating that more than 27 percent of Saudis below 30 years are out of work.
Also part of the equation are more stringent conditions being attached by the Philippine government to the employment of Filipinos in Saudi Arabia, including a minimum of $400 monthly salary and the disclosure of the names of future employers and places of employment that seek to hire OFWs.
A news report in yesterday’s Inquirer revealed another tactic in this policy of “Saudization.” And that is the stamping of the passports of departing workers with “for exit only,” making those who go home for vacation or to process new contracts ineligible to return to Saudi Arabia. For this reason, OFWs in that country are supposedly reluctant to take advantage of their mandated home leaves, unwilling to go through what some workers and their families have experienced upon their arrival in Saudi Arabia.
* * *
Talks are reportedly going on between representatives of both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor and Saudi officials regarding the implementation of the policy. Though Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz says that the Philippine government has not been officially notified of the new policy by Saudi authorities, some Saudi officials have already said they want the minimum wage requirement to be cut by half.
Time will tell if “nitaqat” is simply a negotiation tactic of the Saudi government against governments (Indonesia joins the Philippines among the countries affected) seeking fairer and more advantageous terms for their citizens; or if it is a policy born of economic and social realities that need to be addressed.
Asked for a reaction from Malacañang, all Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte could say was that the Palace was “confident that there were alternative destinations that could absorb OFWs” affected by the new policy.
As for giving workers who could be expelled or not allowed to return from Saudi Arabia alternative employment, Valte cited a livelihood training and assistance program, including packages that provide training and assistance for food processing, garments, beauty shops or computer shops.
* * *
Such a listing is rather underwhelming, and I’m sure for those workers forced to abandon secure, well-paying and rewarding jobs in the Kingdom, such government programs can offer only temporary relief, if at all, from their anxiety and insecurity.
From the moment the first overseas workers were shipped out, the government should have put in place programs to offer alternative employment or income-generating activities to the workers in the event their employment came to an end or, as in the case of disasters or armed conflict such as in Libya, they were forced to evacuate.
Labor export, after all, began as merely a stop-gap measure to provide “temporary” work for the unemployed. But instead of being seen as a temporary emergency measure, labor export was institutionalized, rising in importance and necessity as the economy failed to catch up with the increasing number of jobless youth, and population growth began to outstrip economic growth. Previous administrations even began to act as labor brokers, negotiating with foreign governments for more jobs for Filipinos, and offering ever more attractive terms for foreign employers. In the process, they neglected the need to prepare the country for eventualities such as those in Libya and Saudi Arabia.
Worse, foreign jobs began to attract the better skilled and educated, sapping the economy of the “best and brightest” among our citizens, while expanding the gap between the labor pool and the skills needed by government and private firms.
* * *
Indeed, if Saudi Arabia now has “Saudization” in place, we have long needed “Filipinization.”
While it may be unrealistic to expect a total or even partial ban on employment in Saudi Arabia—every citizen, after all, has the right and freedom to travel whether for employment or pleasure—it may be time for the government to address these difficulties on the home front.
The answer lies not just in talking with Saudi officials for better terms or less onerous regulations, but also in preparing OFWs for realistic alternative employment or income generating. It also means prepping the economy so that both private and public employers can absorb the numbers of returning workers. This is not an easy task, and these balik-OFWs would be competing with the thousands of graduates and out-of-school youth searching for jobs. But the returning workers will bring with them experience and training, which should prove a distinct advantage.
