‘Diversification’ and ‘Privatisation’: Securing Insecurities in the Receiving Country of Malaysia

Abstract

Since the late twentieth century, the numbers of documented and undocumented transnational migrant men and women have grown exponentially in the labour receiving country of Malaysia. This article demonstrates that the Malaysian state pursues a dualpronged strategy of ‘diversifying’ migrant nationalities and 'privatising’ security to frame and manage public anxieties wrought by economic dependence on, and the fear and resentment of, low wage migrant women and men workers. The dual-pronged strategy foregrounds even as it collapses racial, gender and class differences between migrants of different nationalities. State pursuit of this strategy threatens to naturalise the dehumanisation not only of ‘outsiders’, but also those insiders who volunteer in the aggressive protection of their nation against migrants.

Keywords:

• Migrant worker
• Gender
• Race
• Class
• Transnational labour
• State strategy
• Neoliberalism

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Kathryn Robinson, and the two anonymous reviewers, for their constructive comments, which helped strengthen this final version of the article.

Notes

1. The terms of ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ are invoked here in place of ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ countries because the latter two categories are anchored in a problematic evolutionary foundation on which to situate countries. Instead, the terms ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ reference a divide based on the political economy of wealth. Although imperfect, the terms do not affirm a geo-evolutionary development continuum.

2. Neoliberal development is best evinced from the set of policy prescriptions that ‘eliminate’, ‘shrink’ and ‘reduce’ state intervention in the economy. For a more detailed discussion, see Rapley (2004).

3. At the outset, analyses on the state's relationship with migration may seem passé, especially given the extent to which processes, linkages and responses are transnationalised (e.g. from the emergence of transnational migrant communities to that of activism in human and citizenship rights for, and by, migrants; see Lyons 2004; Piper 2007; Elias 2008). Yet, whether the objective is to more fully understand new meanings of migratory experiences, especially from migrants’ perspectives and activities, or to address conditions that give rise to and sustain different modes, patterns and outcomes of migration, one key goal remains the need to investigate why and how receiving states in the Global North and Global South securitise migration, particularly in this neoliberal era. Knowledge of the manner in which neoliberal principles are translated and expressed in terms of racialised, class-based and gendered state power can shed light on the larger context that shapes migrant experiences and identities in receiving countries, as well as potentially further identification of the nature and spaces of opportunities and constraints for activism on migrant rights at the local, national and transnational levels.

4. There is no consensus among scholars or politicians as to the meaning of the phrase. For more detailed discussion on the debate, especially between politicians in Malaysia, please see Cheah (2005) and Williamson (2002).

5. Even though the state ratified the ILO Convention 1997, which gives transnational migrants the same rights as Malaysian workers, it has refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Protection of Rights for All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 1990, which provides for the legal rights of migrants without discrimination based on race, sex, religion etc. (see Piper 2004a,b; Kabeer 2007; Kaur 2007a).

6. This program is open to all foreign nationalities, with the exception of those from 25 countries (i.e. the majority of African countries, Israel, Colombia, Serbia and Montenegro)

7. Even though the state refuses to recognise the UN convention, it did work with UN Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) in the 1970s to eventually repatriate/resettle Vietnamese refugees who succeeded in landing on the shores, despite real threats of being shot down by the navy. Today, the majority of refugees in Malaysia come from neighbouring south-east Asian countries. Some refugees, such as the Christian Chins from Myanmar, have accused the state of discrimination against them (i.e. favouring Muslim Rohinyas from Myanmar and Acehnese from Indonesia), whereas Rohinyas accuse the UNHCR of favouring Christian Chin refugees in the country (Kaur 2007b).