Malaysia's minimum wage saga continues

AFTER all the debate between proponents and opposers and the accompanying fanfare which dragged on for years, the Human Resources Minister finally issued an order in July 2012, declaring that Minimum Wages need to be paid from January 2013.

While the intention was to ensure that all employees will be paid a certain minimum salary, RM900 in peninsular Malaysia, the way in which the order was worded has created problems and headaches for employers, not so much for those who are not paying the minimum wage of RM900 currently, but for employers whose current remuneration package for employees is far above that of RM900.

The blame for this rests squarely on the formulators of the law and the order.

This is further compounded by the recent issuance of so called “Guidelines – method of implementation of the Minimum Wages Order 2012”.

The National Wages Consultative Council Act, (the Act) under which the Minimum Wage Order has been promulgated, states that “wages” has the same meaning as that found in the Employment Act 1955.

“Wages” as defined in the Employment Act 1955 means basic wages and all other payments in cash payable to an employee for work done in respect of his contract of service but does not include the listed exclusions.

However, the Act has also provided a definition for “minimum wages”, to mean, the basic wages to be or as determined under the order made by the Minister under Section 23.

Section 24(2) of the Act goes further to state that where the basic wages in an employment contract is lower than the minimum wage rate as specified in the Minimum Wages Order the minimum wage rate (RM900) shall be substituted for the ‘basic wage’ in the employment contract.

There are many employers, who for a variety of reasons, provide a low basic wage but top up the remuneration package with a variety of other payments such as commissions, allowances, service charge, shift allowance and other payment in cash.

In many instances, the calculation of the additional payments are based on the current “basic wage”.

At the end of each month, these employees earn much more than the minimum RM900.

Often employers fix a low basic wage but pay high rates for other payments, the calculation of which, as mentioned earlier, is sometimes linked to the basic wage. They do so to encourage productivity.

They are not short paying their employees but that is how the wage payments are structured in the country with each industry having its own peculiar structure.

Many instances can be cited where employees paid as much as RM1,500 or even more per month.

The Minimum Wages Order requires that the “basic wage” be now moved up to RM900.

The introduction of minimum wages was never intended to affect these good employers but to compel the ones who pay below RM900 to raise the wages of their employees to a minimum level of RM900 per month.

The Minimum Wages Order in Para 6, however, goes on to suggest that employers and employees and where trade unions exist, could go about and re-negotiate a restructuring of wages before the coming into force of the order.

How on earth are employers, who do not have a union, going to go about this renegotiating with their employees? What if they disagree?

Would any employee or trade union in the right frame of mind agree to raise his current basic (which is lower than RM900) to the new figure of RM900 (thereby helping the employer to conform with the requirement of the Minimum Wages Order) and permit all the other benefits that he is receiving (which is related to the basic) to be lowered so that the end result is that he is placed at a position, (in terms of total remuneration received at the end of the month ) no different than the original amount that he is currently receiving?

The Minimum Wages Order has indeed created confusion in the labour market and that is putting it very mildly. Fortunately, the order comes into force only in January 2013, giving time for corrective measures.

In an attempt to provide some clarity and explanation to this confused state of affairs, the National Wages Consultative Council exercising the powers provided under Section 4(2) of the Act has decided that apart from the matters contained in the Minimum Wages Order 1212 it shall issue some guideline relating to the method of implementation of the order.

Nowhere in Section 4(1) (which refers to the functions of the council) are powers given to it to elaborate, explain, modify or issue guidelines relating to the method of implementing the Minimum Wages Order issued by the Minister under Section 23(1).

If at all the council wants to make any recommendations it could exercise the provision under Section 22(1)(e).

In such an instance it has to make its recommendations to the Government through the Minister.

The Minister, if he agrees with the recommendation, can then issue an order as provided for under Section 22(1). .

Clearly, the drafting of the Minimum Wages Order could have been done much more professionally bearing in mind the objective of the introduction of the minimum wage law.

It is still not too late to remedy the situation and help relieve the unnecessary turmoil the vast majority of employers are now facing.

Up till now so much management time has been lost trying to find answers to the hundreds of questions raised by law abiding employers in the different industries for which no one in the ministry has been able to provide clear-cut answers.

Needless to say, any law enacted must be simple, well drafted, easy to understand and achieve what it is set out to do.

If it creates problems, especially for those who ought not to be affected by it, then something is fundamentally wrong with it.

PETER RAIAPPAN Kuala Lumpur

Related posts:
 Malaysia's minimum wage, and its implications
Malaysia's Minimum wage's benefits and effects
Are Malaysian Employment Laws Challenging?
What's minimum wage in Malaysia?

QE3 triggers fear of new currency wars! What it means?

A man watches the foreign currencies exchange rate in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Fear has crept into the foreign exchange markets: fear of central banks. Currency traders are rapidly shifting assets to countries seen as less likely to try to weaken their currencies, amid concern that the fresh round of US monetary easing could trigger another clash in the “currency wars”.

Fund managers are rethinking their portfolios in the belief that “QE3” – the Federal Reserve’s third round of quantitative easing – will weaken the dollar and trigger sharp gains in emerging market currencies. Such moves would cause a headache for central banks worried about the domestic impact of a strengthening local currency, leading to possible intervention.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.

Some investors are allocating money towards countries with beaten-up currencies, such as India or Russia, or those with more benign central banks, such as Mexico, that do not have a history of frequent forex intervention.

Currencies whose central banks have either intervened or threatened to intervene since QE3 have been underperforming the US dollar as investors have steered clear.

The Czech koruna is the worst-performing major currency against the dollar since QE3 was launched this month, according to a Bloomberg list of expanded major currencies. The governor of the Czech central bank last week raised the prospect of forex intervention as a tool to stimulate the economy.

The Brazilian real is also weaker in the past two weeks after Guido Mantega, finance minister, made it clear that the government would defend the real from any fresh round of currency wars sparked by the Fed’s move.

Even the Japanese yen is weaker against the dollar overall since the Fed’s move, despite having clawed back all its losses after the Bank of Japan’s move to add to its bond-buying programme last week.

Currency desks at Baring Asset Management and Amundi are avoiding the Brazilian real, which the country’s central bank keeps managed at around R$2 against the US currency, and are instead buying the Mexican peso, where the central bank has signalled it is happy for the currency to appreciate further.

James Kwok, head of currency management at Amundi, said: “Mexico is an emerging market currency many managers like as they believe the central bank won’t intervene. The Singapore dollar and the Russian rouble are managed by a range, instead of one-way direction, and so are also good candidates for QE play.”

He is concerned that another “big scale” intervention from Tokyo is on the cards after the BoJ failed to weaken the yen substantially this month, and is avoiding the currency as a result.

“We definitely take the intervention risk into account when investing in a currency,” says Dagmar Dvorak, director of fixed income and currency at Barings. “In Asia, intervention risk is fairly high. We have still got positions in the Singapore dollar but remain cautious on the rest of the region.”

Other investors are opting for currencies that have weakened substantially this year. Clive Dennis, head of currencies at Schroders, says: “Russia and India have currencies with strong rate support and levels which remain well below their best levels of the last year, hence pose less intervention risk. I like owning those currencies in a US QE3 environment.”

Some currencies are strengthening on a combination of Fed easing and domestic factors. While the Indian central bank is not seen as likely to intervene to stem any appreciation in the rupee, the currency has also been popular this month due to a reform package from the Indian government aimed at stimulating the economy.

Commodity currencies including the Russian rouble are responsive to expectations of a rise in commodity prices fuelled by Fed easing, while investors view the Mexican peso, along with the Canadian dollar, as a play on any economic recovery in the US because of their strong trade links.

However, some investors believe the QE3 effect could be lower this time. They argue that central banks in emerging markets face a tough decision over whether to weaken their currencies to help struggling exporters and stimulate growth, or allow them to strengthen to offset the impact of rising food prices.

In fact, the US dollar has shown signs of resilience since QE3 as fears over the health of the eurozone continue.

While flows into EM debt and equity funds rose substantially last week, according to data from EPFR Global, Cameron Brandt, research director, says this week’s flows looked more muted: “There’s a certain amount of reaction fatigue setting in.

By Alice Ross, FT.com

What QE3 means for China and rest of Asia?

 China recently announced plans to boost spending on subways and other transportation infrastructure to boost its economy. But China may not be as aggressive with stimulus as the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Peter Pham, a capital market specialist and entrepreneur with expertise in institutional sales and trading, is the author of AlphaVN.com, an investing blog focusing on Vietnam and other markets in Southeast Asia
 
Now that most of the developed world's major central banks have all committed to some form of open-ended quantitative easing, we can start to make some concrete predictions about the effects this will have in Asia.

In general, QE is being undertaken in the West to stabilize debt markets that are deflating. So this may do little to actually stimulate sustainable economic growth. But, the uncertainty as to whether the central banks would act aggressively kept a lid on many emerging growth markets for months. Here's what may happen next.

China has been lowering interest rates but it cannot afford to do print money to buy bonds like other central banks have done. China's central bank can still announce more fiscal stimulus due to its strong trade surplus. The recent plan to spend $156 billion on domestic infrastructure is significant, but compared to the amount of money the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank may wind up spending, it might was well be $156.

The political situation in China is proving to be more volatile than we may have originally thought as the response to Japan's buying the Senkaku islands seems completely out of proportion with the level of threat or even insult this is represents. It speaks to a party that needs to redirect anger at its own mishandling of the economy.

That this is coming just a few months after Japan and China signed the most sweeping currency and trade agreement of any that China has signed with another country seems very odd.

Japan's response to the QE announcement by the Fed was to extend their existing QE program another 10 trillion Yen (~$128 billion US). That may sound like a lot but it's even less than China's most recent stimulus program.

This suggests that the Bank of Japan is uninterested in printing to oblivion at the same rate as the Fed and ECB, and that Japan will manage the yen's rise while shifting its focus towards more regional trade. Japan and China are each other's largest trading partners, which makes this row over the Senkaku Islands seem manufactured to force the Japanese to choose a side in the growing cold war between the U.S. and China.

So far, Japan has been trying to work with both sides. It is helping to internationalize China's yuan currency and is giving China a clear alternative to U.S. Treasuries with its own bonds. At the same time, Japan has stepped up its purchase of Treasuries, buying more than $200 billion's worth in the past 12 months.

I expect the Bank of Japan to continue to try and position the yen as an alternative regional reserve currency as other Asian nations like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia try to lessen their reliance on the U.S. economy.

By keeping the yen strong versus the euro and the dollar, Japan can attract capital from overseas and use it to deploy it around Asia. There should be enough money sloshing around the region so that Asian nations can continue their trade with the West at current levels while also focusing more on regional growth.

The economies of Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are already growing above expectations this year despite volatility in their currencies because of the fear over Europe. With worries about Europe starting to wane, these countries, as well as the best companies in them, should have little trouble raising capital through bond sales.

The wildcards for Asia are Hong Kong and Singapore. We're already seeing signs of a property bubble in Hong Kong thanks to the Fed's four-year old policy of interest rates near zero. That's because Hong Kong's dollar is nominally pegged to the U.S. dollar.

Now that the Fed has implemented a program that will further debase the dollar -- and expand its already bloated balance sheet -- Hong Kong is being forced to reassess its currency peg. If they do not make changes, this could result in an even bigger property bubble. That would lead to loan problems for Hong Kong banks similar to those plaguing those in the U.S., Europe, China and, to a lesser extent, Singapore.

Since the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) pegs its interest rates to that of the Fed, its economy is vulnerable to a property bubble like the one in Hong Kong. Inflation is currently above 4% and has recently been above 5%. While Singapore's banks are all very well capitalized and their foreign exchange reserves are higher than their annual GDP, the Fed's QE3 policy will put pressure on an economy already dealing with sluggish growth.

But all in all, the latest round of QE is mostly bullish for Asia as it creates some certainty after the past 12 months of extreme uncertainty. Even though the actions by central banks in the West appear to indicate that their economies are worse than the headlines make it seem, the mere fact that the Fed and ECB have acted should reassure investors throughout Asia.

By Peter Pham @CNNMoneyInvest
Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related post:

New global currency wars warning!

Pussy Riot and Malaysian foreign-funded NGOs

Bizarre as it seems, two prominent Malaysian NGOs have something in common with Pussy Riot – the support of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

WHO loves Pussy Riot? Paul McCartney, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sting are in the long list of celebrities supporting the so-called Russian feminist punk rock outfit.



But Madonna appears to have made the biggest impact with her brazen display of endorsement.

Midway through her 1984 hit Like a Virgin during a concert in Moscow last month, she stripped to exhibit the words “Pussy Riot” written across her back.

Her show did little to prevent three members of the group – Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Yekaterina Samutsevich – from being jailed for two years.

They were found guilty of hooliganism and inciting religious hatred in an orthodox Moscow cathedral.

There has been much global media frenzy over their perceived persecution.The international condemnation has come from Amnesty International, the White House, the European Union, the British and German governments and an assortment of human rights groups.

Among the latest to join the chorus are Yoko Ono, wife of ex-Beatle John Lennon, and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The story as being spun by the mainstream global media is that of three young innocent women who were merely expressing their freedom being jailed by the dissent-silencing president Vladimir Putin (ex-KGB, remember?) and as such, need the support from all the outraged freedom-loving, justice-seeking and human rights-embracing people of the world.

After presenting the Lennon Ono Grant for Peace award to Tolokonnikova’s husband, Ono said: “I thank Pussy Riot in standing firmly in their belief for freedom of expression and making all women of the world proud to be women.”

Oh yeah? Let’s look at what they did to earn such an honour. On Feb 21, they stormed the altar of Cathedral of Christ the Saviour wearing balaclavas and bright outfits to “perform” what has been reported as a “punk prayer to the Virgin Mary”.

In reality, it was a grossly blasphemous parody of a Latin hymn, the English lyrics of which read: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts 


Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest

What they yelled during their “performance” was this:

Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! Holy s***, s***, Lord’s s***! St Maria, Virgin, become a feminist ...*Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin *(The Russian Orthodox Church’s Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, whose secular name is Vladimir Gundyaev)
 B****, you better believe in God!

The group is an offshoot of another known as “Voina”, or “War” in Russian, which has since 2008 staged several offensively shocking events in the name of “performance art”, including painting a mural of a penis on a bridge, having group sex in a museum, throwing live cats at workers of a McDonald’s outlet, overturning of police cars and firebombing buildings. They also stole a chicken from a supermarket and performed a lewd act with it.

It’s highly doubtful that the information would be revealed by the Western media when the case comes up for appeal on Oct 1.

Imagine the repercussions if such a group entered a mosque, church, or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Malaysia to similarly “express their freedom”.

People who commit such acts in the US or in most European countries would also be arrested, charged and jailed, so what’s the big deal about these women?

For one thing, they seem to have powerful backers, in the form of the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Yes, the same entity supporting Bersih and Suaram, which is now being probed over its sources of foreign funding.

According to conspirazzi.com, Pussy Riot and Voina have open links to the NED through Oksana Chelysheva, who is deputy executive director of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society funded by the NED and George Soros-funded outfits.

The NED was created in 1983, seemingly as a non-profit-making organisation to promote human rights and democracy but as its first president Allen Weinstein admitted to The Washington Post in 1991, a lot of what it does overtly used to be done covertly by the CIA.

In the words of ex-CIA officer Ralph McGeehee, it subsidises and influences elections, political parties, think tanks, academia, publishers, media and labour, religious, women’s and youth groups.

Russia has since introduced a new Bill to label NGOs that get foreign funds and are involved in politics as “foreign agents”, with their accounts subject to public scrutiny.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, says the US, too, has laws which require foreign interests to register as foreign agents but this does not always apply to all Israeli lobby groups.

“There are no political parties in the US that are funded by foreign interests. No such thing would be permitted. It would be regarded as high treason,” he was quoted as saying by Pravda.

So, if outsiders are not allowed to fund and interfere in US politics, why should we allow its agencies to meddle in ours?

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER
By M. VEERA PANDIYAN

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan sees the wisdom in this quote from Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard: People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Related post

Foreign funding for political purposes in Malaysia

Sep 22, 2012