Mengapa tidak ada wakil pekerja dalam Lembaga Pengarah Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO)?
Nyata ada 4 Pengarah Wakil Majikan....dan sepatutnya ada juga wakil pekerja - kini, jika dilihat senarai Ahli Mewakili Orang Yang Berinsurans, ini merupakan wakil pekerja dan jelas nama Setiausaha MTUC kini ada dalam senarai tersebut... TETAPI jika ada 'wakil majikan', mesti juga ada kategori 'Wakil Pekerja' ...termasuk juga kategori 'wakil orang yang berinsurans'. Wakil Pekerja perlu kerana ramai pekerja pun kini tidak dibawah skim PERKESO - dan MTUC sebenarnya adalah wakil semua pekerja di Malaysia termasuk juga pekerja kerja sendiri, pekerja tak berunion, dsb... Wakil Pekerja ada tugas mungkin untuk cuba memastikan bahawa semua kategori pekerja diletakkan di bawah skim PERKESO...Kini berapa bilangan tenaga pekerja di Malaysia - apakah bilangan pekerja yang dibawah skim PERKESO - berapa pekerja yang kini tidak di bawah apa-apa 'sosial security scheme'?
Kalau dalam Lembaga Pengarah, jelas MTUC, Union ahli dan pekerja sudah tahu dari awal apa-apa pindaan Akta yang akan berlaku...TETAPI mengapakah maklumat (amaran sesuatu yang tidak bagus kepada pekerja) tidak dimaklumkan terdahu oleh mereka yang menjadi ahli badan pengarah mewakili pekerja...
Adakah wakil pekerja dalam Lembaga Pengarah PERKESO (atau KWSP) memberikan lapuran berkala kepada MTUC mengenai apa yang sedang diperbincangkan atau perkembangan baru dalam PERKESO atau KWSP...Mungkin bagi MTUC, pada setiap mesyuarat Majlis Am (atau Exco/Majlis Tertinggi) lapuran harus diberikan oleh mereka yang menjadi wakil pekerja...
Adakah Agenda MTUC, sebagai contoh, ada perkara -'Lapuran Wakil Pekerja Dalam PERKESO', 'Lapuran Wakil Pekerja Dalam KWSP", dll... atau adakah wakil ini yang sudah dilantik tidak lagi memberi lapuran kepada mereka yang mereka wakili (gulungan pekerja), dan pekerja juga tidak memantau wakil mereka...
Kerana ada perwakilan pekerja - tidak patut kita hanya menyedari sesuatu yang berkaitan hanya bila kerajaan mahu pinda Akta atau polisi....jika ini berlaku wakli pekerja dalam Lembaga Pengarah GAGAL - apa guna ada wakil dalam Lembaga Pengarah yang hanya 'syok sendiri' memanaskan kerusi semasa mesyuarat dan menikmati elaun sebagai Pengarah...
Adakah yang mewakili pihak pekerja lupa bahawa mereka hanya WAKIL - mereka bukan dilantik kerana diri mereka sendiri tetapi sebagai WAKIL...
KWSP pun keadaannya sama --- kenapa Union dan pekerja tidak dimaklumkan mengenai hasrat/perbicangan melewatkan umur pekerja mendapat hak mengeluarkan ... Jika tak ada WAKIL, ada lojik jika Union dan Pekerja 'terperanjat' dan hanya dapat tahu bila kerajaan buat pengumuman atau mengemukan usul pindaan Akta..saperti mahu lewatkan usia bila pekerja ada hak keluarkan wang KWSP?
WAKIL PEKERJA - nampaknya gagal bertindak sebagai wakil > Lebih baik wakil sedemikian dibuang dan wakil baru yang 'transparent dan accountable'...dilantik....
Mungkin, ada yang beri alasan adamacam 'OSA' - dan bahawa mereka tidak boleh dedahkan apa yang berlaku dalam Lembaga Pengarah kepada orang lain. Karut - mereka dilantik bukan secara individu gitu saja > tetapi sebagai 'WAKIL PEKERJA' - dan Dalam PERKESO, sebagai 'WAKIL ORANG BERINSURAN'
Adakah wakil Kementerian Sumber Manusia memberi lapuran dan mendapatkan arahan daripada ketua mereka, kementerian mereka atau Menteri berkenaan? Sememangnya ada - kerana mereka pun hanya 'wakil' ...
Sama juga dengan Pengarah yang menjadi Wakil Pekerja - apa yang berlaku perlu dilapurkan kepada BOS(iaitu Union lain, pekerja) - dan arahan harus diperolehi daripada BOS mengenai pendirian yang akan diambil dalam Lembaga Pengarah - sokong apa, bantah apa, kompromisi mana yang boleh diterima ...
Jika ini kini tidak berlaku, wakil sedia ada bukan sahaja GAGAL - tetapi dalam setengah keadaan mungkin juga boleh dianggap PENDERHAKA... apabila berlaku pindaan Akta tiba-tiba atau 'polisi' yang mencabul hak pekerja/Union..
BILA sudah bermula perbincangan diperingkat Lembaga Pengarah - pekerja/Union sudah mesti tahu, dan menyertai proses perbincangan melalui wakil mereka dalam Lembaga Pengarah...
Kini kita hanya tahu bila keluar media...dan baru kita mula bertindak??? Tetapi bukankah anih kerana 'wakil' pekerja sudah tahu mengenai isu ini mungkin sudah lama...
Berikut senarai Ahli Lembaga PERKEO - dari Laman PERKESO
Berikut juga sebuah rencana membincangkan seksyen baru seksyen 74a Akta mengenai PERKESO, yang membolehkan PERKESO mengambilalih syarikat - yang mungkin menyebabkan duit PERKESO digunakan untuk 'membantu' syarikat macam 1MDB, dll...yang mengalami masalah.... Bagus untuk pekerja atau tidak?
The new provision of section 74a allows Socso to establish or take over any company, with the approval of Minister of Human Resources and Minister of Finance respectively.
Is Socso's fund still safe with new section 74a?
MP SPEAKS | What are the common
denominations of public entities such as Employees Provident Fund (EPF),
Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (Diperbadankan) (KWAP), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan
Tentera (LTAT), Tabung Haji and Social Security Organization (Socso)?
Yes, they are part of our social security funds.
Each of these
funds is regulated by its own special legislation. Each law was
specifically designed in order to ensure the organisation would operate
within the specified boundaries which were prescribed for it.
Since
the sources of these funds originate from the people, it goes without
saying that the money should only be used and utilised for the specified
purposes designed for them. In a nutshell, these funds are the trust
funds.
It is common knowledge that on many occasions, we have
witnessed how these social security funds were arbitrarily used, going
beyond the mandated scope, such as bailing out certain ambiguous and
dubious businesses.
In a society where the principles of
accountability, transparency and trustworthiness is extremely low, the
social security funds can become easy prey of ferocious political
predators.
We have seen how a sizable chunk of money from EPF,
KWAP, LTAT and Tabung Haji were arbitrarily used before in order to bail
out some irresponsible elements in the country.
Fortunately, so
far, we have not heard of or seen any bailout coming from the Socso's
fund. It is everybody's wish and hope, especially the contributors to
the fund, that Socso will forever keep on track insofar as the
management of the workers' money is concerned.
Worrying amendment
Whether
the Socso's huge and valuable assets remain secured and safe is
questionable now, given the fact that some controversial amendments have
been introduced by BN government to the Employees' Social Security Act
1969 ("Act"). A new section of 74a,which is inserted in the Act, has
raised some eyebrows due to its deep impact on the security of the fund.
I
don't have the current figures of Socso's assets but according to the
Socso annual report of 2014, the value of its current assets (mostly
cash) was RM 11 billion and its non current assets stood at RM
11billion. With the new amendments of the Act, all the employees,
regardless of their salaries, are obligated to contribute to Socso. Be
that as it may, we expect its current assets would be steadily increased
manifold.
The new provision of section 74a allows Socso to
establish or take over any company, with the approval of Minister of
Human Resources and Minister of Finance respectively.
Two days
were allocated by Parliament for the debate and ministerial reply
respectively on the amendments of the Act. Many Pakatan Harapan members
of parliament (MPs) who participated in the debate, I included,
strenuously objected to this controversial section of 74a. As expected,
BN MPs accepted this section without demur.
Apart from section
74a, many also raised the issue of the removal of Bank Negara's
representative from the Socso's panel of investment. The government
justified such a removal by using the excuse of conflict of interest. We
raised legitimate concerns that such a removal would jeopardise the
internal mechanism of checks and balance.
But my focus in this
article is more on the new section of 74a. As far as I am concerned,
this provision has far reaching repercussions on the survivability and
longevity of this social security fund.
Room for misappropriation
Our
reason for the objection was very clear. Why should the government drag
Socso to do something which it was not designed for in the first place?
Why is there a need to derail Socso from its original objectives and
statutory functions? What is the underlying rationale stimulating the
government to introduce such a mind-boggling provision?
We believe
all these questions are legitimate and they demand truthful and honest
answers from the government, considering the sizable chunk of money in
Socso’s fund.
When I debated, I raised the concerns that this new
section would possibly expose the trust money in the Socso fund to a
very high risk. Not only that. Section 74a, I contended, would also
possibly give room for the misappropriation of such a fund for any
undesignated purpose. Using the fund for establishing or taking over any
company is definitely outside the purview of Socso’s roles and
functions.
In my debate, I queried the minister, "Can you give us
the guarantee or assurance that not even a single penny would be taken
from the Socso’s fund for the purpose of establishing and running a new
company or taking over any existing company?”
Unfortunately, the minister did not answer my question. In fact, many other questions by my colleagues also remained unanswered.
I
dare to say that the way minister replied to our questions, he seemed
to have lost direction and gone off tangent so much so we had a hard
time understanding him, let alone his reasons.
When we asked him
what was really the rationale for allowing Socso to establish or take
over a company, his reply was, "Socso established a rehab centre in
Malacca and I have visited the place. When I looked at the patients
therein, my tears fell down."
An irrelevant reply to a fairly
simple question. With such a reply, I believe, all the Malaysians have
more reasons to be concerned with the future of the Socso's fund.
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is Sepang MP.
No comments:
Post a Comment