At the Conference on Migration orgainized by the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, the South East Asian Committee for Advocacy and the Migrant Forum in Asia, which commenced in Bangkok on March 13^th 208, Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat, chaired the session on ‘Adressing Challegnes: Role of Parliamentarians and Best Practices in Bilateral Agreements.

In his opening remarks, Prof Wijesinha drew attention to the recent proposal co-sponsored at the World Health Organization by the Sri Lankan Minister of Health, the Hon Nimal Siripala de Silva, that migrant workers have better access to health care in recipient countries. It was suggested that the Conference, which would produce recommendations, should forward these swiftly to Dr Dayan Jayatillkeka, Sri Lankan Chairman of the Governing Body of ILO, since the ILO sessions would take place in Geneva in the week beginning March 16^th.

Prof Wijesinha noted that world policy on Labour Migration in the context of Globalization reminded him of comments made over 20 years previously by the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith in discussing the economic policies of President Ronald Reagan. Prof Galbraith suggested that President Reagan though that America was not working hard enough: the rich were not working hard enough because they did not have enough money, so he proposed tax cuts for them; the poor were not working hard enough because they had too much money, so he proposed cuts in social security.

Similarly as Senator Pimentel of the Philippines had noted at a CALD Conference some years earlier, the agenda for globalization was set by developed countries, which promoted globalization of goods, finance and services, in all of which they excelled. However they were less enthusiastic about the globalization of labour, which was what developing countries excelled in.

Again, limitations on market principles were presented as acceptable with regard to recruitment policies, but similar limitations with regard to insistence on basic welfare provisions were not encouraged. In this context it was worth noting the earlier remarks of the representative of the International Organization for Migration, who had pointed out that it was countries with GDP growth which needed inward labour migration, but there was little concern about using some benefits of this growth to provide services such as education and health to these migrants. In the same context the representative of the International Labour Organization had noted that labour migration benefited both the sending country and the receiving country, but understanding of this was not widespread amongst citizens in the receiving country. This was one reason for governments not treating inward migrants as the income generation resource they in fact were.

Speakers at the first day of the Conference included representatives from Thailand, the Philipplines, Indonesia andCambodia,and  representatives of IOM and the ILO. Though the sub-title of the Conference was ‘Labor Migration in Southeast Asia: What Role for Parliamentarians?’ many of the issues raised were relevant to Sri Lanka, and the initiative of the Sri Lankan Minister of Health would, if actively promoted immeasurably benefit migrant workers from all over the world.