Thursday, December 06, 2012

52 groups fight for rights of wrongfully dismissed workers in Malaysia



Joint Statement 5/12/2012[Now 52]

Remedy against employers that wrongfully dismiss workers is a fundamental right of all workers
- All cases of wrongful dismissal must be referred to the Industrial Court -

We, the 52 undersigned groups, organisations, trade unions and networks are appalled by the revelation that revelation that between the period of 2001 and 2011, that  31.5% or  10,016 of workers in Malaysia who claimed wrongful dismissal, were denied their right to have their cases heard and determined by the Industrial Court, by reason of the Minister of Human Resources refusal to refer these cases after attempts at conciliation with the employer had failed to reach a settlement. (Utusan Online, 23/10/2012, 31,714 kes tuntutan pekerja gagal diselesaikan secara rundingan/ 31,714 cases of workers failed to be settled vide conciliation)

In Malaysia, after workers claiming wrongful dismissal is lodged within sixty (60) days at the Industrial Relations Department(IRD), conciliation meetings are held between employer and worker in an attempt to reach an amicable settlement, and if this fails, the case is referred to the Minister to decide whether the case be referred to the Industrial Court or not. There is no right to be heard before the Minister, and his decision seems only in reliance of the report sent by his officer involved in the conciliation process. During conciliation process, workers are no longer allowed the right to be represented by lawyers by virtue of amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) in 1989.

Datuk Seri Dr. S. Subramaniam, the Minister of Human Resources, in parliament also revealed, amongst others, the reasons why the 10,016 cases were not referred to the Industrial Court by the Minister. Amongst others, they were:-
a) Because the worker was dismissed for misconduct;
b) Because the Employer has shut down its business;
c) Because the Worker was given the opportunity to return back to work But refused to come back to work;
d) Because the worker had been terminated because the employment contract had come to an end;
e) Because the worker had voluntarily stopped work under some Voluntary Separation Scheme(VSS), and then changed their mind after receiving payment;

Clearly, these are conclusions that should never be made by the Minister without considering all evidence of witnesses and documents, and listening to legal submissions, which is best done by the Industrial Court. Hence, the Minister’s reasons are not acceptable, and he obviously seemed to have just accepted explanations of employers over claims of aggrieved workers who have lost their jobs.

The aggrieved worker, whose cases are not referred by the Minister to the Industrial Court, still do have the option to apply for Judicial Review at the High Court but realistically, this would not happen because most workers just do not have the needed resources or the capacity. The government revealed recently  that 34% of 1.3 million workers in a government study earn less than RM700, which is below the poverty line income. An application to the High Court involves not only expenses but also the subsequent risk of being ordered to pay cost that could be about RM10,000 if unsuccessful, and as such most workers elect not to apply to High Court. As such, a decision of the Minister not to refer the case to the Industrial Court  ends an aggrieved workers quest for justice.

We call for the amendment of the law, to ensure that all cases that could not be resolved amicably between parties should as of right be referred to the Industrial Court. The now existing step of referring to the Minister who then decides to refer or not a case to the Industrial Court should be removed from the law books.

Wrongfully dismissing a worker without just cause or reason is a grave injustice. When a worker’s employment is wrongfully terminated, it seriously affects the well being, livelihood and financial security of not just the workers but also their families. Obligations to pay monthly amenities bills, car/housing loan repayments, credit card payments and others payments necessary for well being of the family continue irrespective of a  loss of monthly income. 

Wrongful dismissal is a serious wrongdoing by the employer, which need to be penalized with a deterrent award, and the existence of an avenue for justice for workers wrongfully dismissed need to be available for all classes of workers.

Malaysian government sadly places the interest of employers over the interest of workers. Rights of the wrongfully dismissed workers have been eroded over the years.

In 2007, the Industrial Relations Act was amended which had the effect of reducing the entitlement of a worker found to have been wrongfully dismissed by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court could either order the worker to be reinstated as employee, or alternatively order the employer to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement being all salary and benefits from the date of wrongful dismissal until the date of judgment, the later being the norm. 

The 2007 amendment limited the compensation award to no more than twenty-four months’ back wages from the date of dismissal, but also limited it to be calculated based on the last-drawn salary of the person who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse hence eliminating the right to salary increments and bonuses which one would have been received had they not been wrongfully dismissed. It also allowed for deductions with reference to post-dismissal earnings of the wrongfully dismissed worker, and ‘contributory misconduct’ on the part of the worker. Worst affected were workers on probation whereby their entitlements were halved, when in Malaysia there is still no law that limits the period a worker can be  kept on probation, which in some cases it may extend to years.

The refusal of the Minister to refer 31.5% of wrongful dismissal cases that could not be settled amicably to court is yet another anti-worker indicator.

Only 5 out of the 13 States and 1 out of the 3 Federal Territories in Malaysia have Industrial Courts. Distance will definitely be more prejudicial to the worker than the employer. There is not just the cost of transportation and accommodation, but also the difficulty of getting witnesses to attend court. There should be Industrial Courts in every State and Federal Territory, and all major towns.

Now, there are moves by the Malaysian government to even completely exclude access to this avenue of justice to certain categories of workers being workers with less than one-year of continuous service, probationers, apprentices, workers in management positions; and also contract workers. The Malaysian government now permits employers to use short-term employment contracts, and most times these contracts do not exceed 12 months. Most recently the ‘contractor for labour system’ or outsourcing workers or ‘contract workers’. If the proposed amendments become law, employers will be happy as wrongfully dismissing most workers will no longer be a problem, and workers lose their right and ability to claim justice.

As it is, most migrant workers effectively do not have access, given the fact that after they be wrongfully dismissed, their immigration visa/pass is also terminated hence disabling them the ability to stay or work legally in Malaysia. Even if they have filed a complaint in the IRD, it is immaterial for they cannot stay on in Malaysia, and if they do they risk arrest, detention, whipping and deportation. 

We call on Malaysia to promote and protect worker rights and welfare, including those of their families.

We call for an amendment of the Industrial Relations Act 1967(IRA) to enable all wrongful dismissal cases that could not be resolved amicable to be referred directly to the Industrial Court. The power of the Minister to decide whether cases are referred to the Industrial Court must be extinguished.

We call for the repeal of the 2007 amendments to the IRA, including Schedule 2, that effectively reduced entitlements of workers who found to have been wrongfully dismissed by the Industrial Court, and further discriminates against workers on ‘probation’. Minimally workers should be entitled to all back-wages without loss of benefits, but justly they should be entitled to maybe double the said amount or an additional sum, which would assist workers cover all the cost, expenses, time and energy loss claiming this rights, and doubling or tripling the award sum would also serve as a deterrent to employers wrongfully dismissing workers. 

We call for the making of Directors and principal shareholders to be personally liable, when the Company employer is not able to pay the worker the award sum ordered by the Industrial Court. 

We call on the Minister of Human Resources to do the needful to ensure all the said 10,016 workers cases claiming wrongful dismissal be forthwith referred to the Industrial Court to ensure the right to a full trial is given effect.

We also call for the speedy disposal of cases of wrongful dismissal especially in cases where the claimant is a migrant worker, and that until the case is heard and settled in court, provisions be made that migrant workers be accorded the right to stay and work legally in Malaysia.

We reject any proposed amendments that will deprive certain classed of workers the right to claim justice in cases of wrongful dismissal. No employer should wrongfully dismiss workers, and all workers even workers on short-term employment contracts or have worked for a short period should have access to avenues of justice, and the right to claim, amongst others, reinstatement and/or compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

We also reiterate the call for the Malaysian government to abolish short-term contract employment and the ‘contractor for labour system’/’outsourcing’, and ensure that all workers have the right to regular permanent employment and security of tenure in a direct 2-party employment relationship.

Charles Hector
Syed Shahir Bin Syed Mohamud

for and on behalf of

Aliran
Arus Pelangi
Asia Monitor Resource Centre
Burma Campaign Malaysia
CCHR (Cambodian Center for  Human Rights)
Centre for Development Resourses-CENFORD, Vietnam
Clean Clothes Campaign
Community Action Network
Community Development Services (CDS), Sri Lanka
Democratic Party for a New Society (DPNS)
FORLITAN (Forum Peduli Pertanahan Indonesia)
GoodElectronics Network
Hope Community Action Network
Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com
IMPARSIAL The Indonesian Human Rights Monitor
Indonesia for Human's
JERIT (Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas), Malaysia
Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Polyplastics Asia Pacific - (KPPAP)
Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Selatan
Kilusang Mayo Uno (May First Movement, Philippines)
Knights For Peace, International, Philippines
Legal Resources Center for Gender Justice and Human Rights /LRC-KJHAM
LIPS (Lembaga Informasi Perburuhan Sedane/Sedane Labour Resource Centre)
LPSD (The Law and Policy of Sustainable Development Research Center).
LRC-KJHAM (Legal Resources Center for Gender Justice and Human
Rights) Indonesia
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility
MAP Foundation, Thailand
makeITfair
Mindanao Migrant Center for Empowering Actions, Inc. (MMCEAI)
MIGRANTE International
NAMM (Network of Action for Migrants in Malaysia)
National Union of Bank Employees.(NUBE), Malaysia
National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), Malaysia.
NLD-LA (National League for Democracy-Liberated Areas), Malaysia
Pakistan Rural Workers Social Welfare Organization,(PRWSWO),
Paper Union Of Malaysia
Parti Rakyat Malaysia(PRM)
Pax Romana-ICMICA Asia
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor
PINAY (Filipino Womens' Oganization in Quebec)
Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor dan Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)
Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS)
Reclasseering Indonesia KOMWIl Provinsi Sumatera Utara
Seafarers Union of Burma/Myanmar (S.U.B)
Seksualiti Merdeka
SUARAM
Tenaganita
Thai Committee for Refugees Foundation (TCR)
WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
Yaung Chi Oo Workers Association (YCOWA)
Yayasan Lintas Nusa - Batam, Indonesia

Will Electronic workers now get their union as Court of Appeal dismisses Renesas Semiconductor's appeal


Electronic factory workers in Renesas Semiconductor KL Sdn (formerly known as NEC Semiconductors (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd) aree happy when the Court of Appeal on 5/12/2012 rejected the appeal of Renesas Semiconductor KL Sdn.

Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Barat Semenanjung Malaysia [Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region (EIEU Western Region)] have submitted for recognition of the Trade Union in Renesas Semiconductor KL Sdn but alas the company has refused recognition - and, if this is the case then the Registrar of Trade Union should conduct a 'secret ballot' at the factory and if the majority of the workers agree to the union - it will be recognized.

But Renesas having been placing many hurdles preventing the 'secret ballot' - hence the court case... 

Even after the company failed at the High Court, and allegedly there was no court order barring the conduct of the 'secret ballot' - it was still not carried out... 
Now, the Court of Appeal has rejected Renesas's appeal with cost... will the 'secret ballot' finally be conducted and the union recognized...?

It must be noted that  Wan Nurulazhar bin Mohd Hanafiah, the President of the Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region (EIEU Western Region), was also terminated by Renesas Semiconductor KL Sdn Bhd, where he worked, on 26/8/2011.Wan Nurulazhar claims that he was wrongfully dismissed. The case is now at the Industrial Court.










5/12/2012
Dec 5 2012 09:00:00:000AM

MAHKAMAH RAYUAN 
Guaman No. : W-01(IM)-348-08/2012

Appellant
Renasas Semiconductor KL Sdn Bhd

Respondent
1.Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja
2.Ketua Pengarah Perhubungan Perusahaan 
3.Kesatuan Sekerja Industri Elektronik Wilayah Barat Semenanjung Malaysia
4.Bruno Gentil Pereira

MAHKAMAH : SEBULAT SUARA - RAYUAN DITOLAK DENGAN KOS SEBANYAK RM10,000.00 KEPADA RESPONDEN. DEPOSIT DIKEMBALIKAN KEPADA PERAYU.

Source: Court of Appeal Website

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Would Malaysia follow the wisdom of Australia with regard Trade Agreements?

 Australia, in April 2011, announced it would not agree to including investor-state dispute settlement provisions in its BITS and free trade agreements, and this is what Australia has done in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which involves Malaysia

Would Malaysia follow the wisdom of Australia? Or would it foolishly still agree to be bound to the 'investor state disputes procedure' - which opens the future actions by any foreign investor (including shareholders?) to drag Malaysia into expensive arbitration in a tribunal in the US - and this can be done when Malaysia in the future changes laws and policies for the benefit of workers, public health, environmental protection... Most of these Trade Agreements expect Malaysia to stay where it is today with regards to worker and public rights and welfare, public health, environmental protection. 

So, if Malaysia 
- abolishes short-term employment contracts and outsourcing in favour of regular employment until retirement 
-  provides for a higher mandatory minimum wage
-  insist of just 8-hour working day
- decides on public health consideration to shut down LYNAS
would that not result in some foreign investor hauling Malaysia to some expensive arbitration in the US claiming millions of ringgit..by reason of some of these investor protection clauses in Free Trade Agreements(FTAs) or Bilateral Investment Treaties(BITs) - true or false, I do not know since our Malaysian government does not tell us anything - and most things are secret. 

After all the BN government's position has usually been 'Don't Worry...We Will Do What is Best' - and so Malaysians were kept in the dark about many things...  Do see earlier posts:-

What is Malaysia doing about stopping foreign investors preventing improvement of livelihood of Malaysians?

By signing FTAs with Investor Protection Clauses, Malaysia has failed Malaysians

VDO of the New Zealand parliamentary sitting found on YouTube (we in Malaysia do not even have the right to live broadcasts of Parliamentary sessions) - discussing this very issue of "investor state disputes"...   


Question:Does he stand by his statement regarding investor state disputes procedures proposed in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that "An exclusion solely for Australia and not for everybody else is unlikely to be something we would support"; if so, why?

Saturday, December 01, 2012

Time to work out what specific changes we want after PRU13

Time for Malaysians to sit down and make known a list of changes in law and policy that we want as the 13th General Elections is fast approaching - we can use this list to get the commitments of the politicians and political parties contesting.... and if a NEW government comes in, they can quickly move and make the necessary changes within months.... 

For example:-

1. We want the abolition of ALL Detention Without Trial Laws...

2. We want the abolition of the Death Penalty - or at least the immediate removal of all MANDATORY Death Penalty sentences...


WORKERS want:-

1. The abolition of 'contractor for labour system' - NO to outsourcing workers and outsourcing agents

2. Abolition of short-term employment contract workers - all workers should be permanent employees of their employer until retirement age

3. Ensure that discrimination based on gender is abolished in the private sector... 

4. Ensure that a worker does not lose his/her right to be a member of the trade union in cases of termination

5. Ensure that trade unions are recognized within thirty(30) days from the date a trade union submits its claims for recognition. 

a) Trade Union submits claim for recognition to Employer, employer recognizes - end of story - TU is recognized then can start on the Collective Bargaining Agreement

b) If Employer do not recognize, or just do not answer, Registrar of Trade Unions step in and conducts 'secret ballot' to ensure that majority of workers wants TU [Secret ballot must be done within fourteen(14) days...] - Now, the Registrar delays ...and delays... Employer gets rid of some pro-union workers, gets new anti-union workers...so, when it comes to 'secret ballot'....in short defeats the right of workers to form Trade Unions...so, no delay - immediately get unions recognized.

c) The use of 'short term employment contracts' must end ...for simply, workers who are for the Trade Union can easily find that their employment contract is not extended or not renewed or they are not offered a new contract in that company....


 

IS THIS ENOUGH?

Better if we can be even more specific - asking for this section to be amended and/or repealed... and for that Act to be abolished...

Friday, November 30, 2012

Without FTAs, foreign investors come in and goods flow in and out

Without an FTA, foreign investors came in and set up their factories, and exported/imported goods from Malaysia. There is really no need for Malaysia to sign Free Trade Agreements ...in fact a MOU would have been sufficient...

Now we are beginning to understand the dangers of FTAs - how it prevents Malaysian government changing laws to improve rights and benefits of workers and the public at large... Oh yes, when we pass NEW laws and/or policies to improve working and living conditions of persons in Malaysia, including workers.... FTAs allow "investors" to be able to take legal action against MALAYSIA on the grounds that it affects the 'legitimate interest' of the business. FTAs, some expect us to maintain the conditions as it is ... 

See also earlier posts:-

By signing FTAs with Investor Protection Clauses, Malaysia has failed Malaysians

What is Malaysia doing about stopping foreign investors preventing improvement of livelihood of Malaysians?

 

 

Australian senate passes Australia-M'sia free trade bill
 
The Australian senate has passed legislation to create stronger trade ties with Malaysia through a new free trade agreement.

Senators yesterday approved the legislation to implement the agreement, which will lead to almost all Australian goods being able to enter Malaysia free of import duties, the Australian Associated Press reported.

The Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement will guarantee tariff-free entry for 97.6 percent of goods exported from Australia after it comes into force.

It will rise to 99 percent by 2017.

Malaysian exporters will enjoy duty-free entry to the Australian market.

The opposition backed this legislation with shadow attorney-general George Brandis saying it dated back to 2005 when former prime minister John Howard’s government launched the negotiations.

Brandis said Malaysia was Australia’s third largest trading partner in Asean and 10th largest partner overall with exports of A$5 billion and imports of A$9.1 billion in 2011-2012.

“Prominent Australian industries are set to benefit from this new trade agreement with Malaysia, including the Australian dairy industry,” he told the senate.

Brandis said other Australian industries set to gain from the trade agreement include the local automotive sector, wine, agriculture including sugar, wheat and rice, plastics, processed food, chemical and a range of manufactured goods.

Greens leader Christine Milne said the greens had a long-standing position that free trade agreements were not what they were cracked up to be.

“No matter how efficient an Australian farmer, they cannot compete against farmers in other economies if farmers in other economies don’t have to bear the cost of compliance with environmental laws and standards or compliance with labour standards.

“We cannot have free trade agreements in the future unless they take those things into account,” she added.

The senate passed the Customs Amendment (Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2012.
 

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

What is Malaysia doing about stopping foreign investors preventing improvement of livelihood of Malaysians?

Our BN government have been entering FTAs (Free Trade Agreements) - Bilateral Investment Treaties without careful consideration - and this failure will affect Malaysia and Malaysians...

Of concern is the said  Investor protection clauses/section in these agreements which open the door to foreign investors to take Malaysia to international tribunals, not in Malaysia. Yes, the investor - not the foreign State government can cause Malaysia a lot of money even when Malaysia does things for the good of the people, workers, ,,,, see earlier post: By signing FTAs with Investor Protection Clauses, Malaysia has failed Malaysians

Bilateral Investment Treaties between governments ultimately seem to benefit corporations and businesses who can now take to task governments of countries they invest in for millions of dollars... 

The bringing in of new policies and laws that will benefit its people can open the doors for these foreign investors to claim great damages ... on the ground that it affects the legitimate interest of businesses...profits. 

Sure corporations and businesses have NO duty to ensure people, workers, etc good, livelihood, rights, health, etc is improved - it is the duty of government.


The emerging crisis of investment treaties
[South Bulletin 69 Article]
An epidemic of international legal suits taken by companies against governments for billions of dollars is causing public concern and leading to reviews of investment treaties.

By Martin Khor
A growing number of international law suits has highlighted an emerging global crisis:   the nature and effects of investment treaties signed between governments but which are allowing private companies and investors to sue countries for millions or even billions of dollars.

The most recent cases involving investment include a US$1.8 billion judgment against Ecuador obtained by the U.S. oil company Occidental Petroleum, a US$2 billion suit filed against Indonesia by a UK mining company Churchill,  cases taken against Uruguay and Australia for public health measures by tobacco companies, suits threatened against India by several multinational companies, and even the seizure of an Argentinian warship in a Ghana port on behalf of a U.S. investment firm.

The law suits, which have resulted in judgments totalling many billions of dollars against governments, were taken by companies and investors claiming that their investments including future profits had been affected by a range of government policies, including non-compliance with contracts or new health, environmental or economic measures.

Most of arbitration cases are taken up in the ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes), based in the World Bank in Washington.

The tribunal system is widely criticised for its lack of professionalism and transparency, its conflicts of interest and the secrecy of its cases and outcomes.

The epidemic of cases and the high losses that governments have suffered or will potentially suffer is giving rise to grave concerns and calls by several governments as well as public interest groups and legal experts to review and amend the agreements that have led to the legal suits.

The agreements are of two main types – the bilateral investment treaties (BITS) signed between pairs of governments (of which there are now around 3,000) and the investment chapter contained in bilateral or regional free trade agreements (especially those involving the United States).

Many of these agreements have “investor-to-state” dispute systems, under which a private company or investor can directly sue governments in an international tribunal by claiming that their property or profits have been “expropriated” or adversely affected by a violation of contracts or by recent policy measures.

The following are some recent cases of legal suits taken by investors against countries:

·  An ICSID tribunal in October awarded a judgment for US-based Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) against Ecuador of US $1.8 billion, its largest ever award, in a case taken under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT.  In addition, Ecuador has to pay $589 million in backdated compound interest and half of the costs of the tribunal, making its total penalty around $2.4 billion.  The government had annulled a contract with Oxy because it violated a clause that the company would not sell its rights to another firm without permission.  The tribunal agreed the violation took place but judged that the annulment was not fair and equitable treatment to the company.  (Ben Beachy, Public Citizen Global Trade Watch)

·  The Indonesian government was sued in June for $2 billion by a London-based mining company Churchill, which claims its right to mine in Busang (East Kalimantan) was violated when the local government revoked the concession rights held by a local company in which it had invested. The government is countering the Churchill case, claiming that Churchill did not have the correct type of mining licenses. Law Minister Amir Syamsuddin said Churchill's acquisition of a local company broke the law as they did not report nor get approval from the regency government and Jakarta.  Two Ministers and other senior officials will be representing Indonesia at the case in ICSID.  (Straits Times, Singapore, 18 Sept 2012)

·  The tobacco company Philip Morris sued Uruguay for alleged breaches to the Uruguay-Swiss BIT for requiring cigarette packs to display graphic health warnings and sued Australia under the Australia-Hong Kong BITS for requiring plain packaging for its cigarettes.  The company claims that the packaging requirements in both countries violates its investment, including its trademark which as an intellectual property is an investment asset.

·  The Indian government has planned to review its bilateral investment agreements after foreign telecommunication companies gave notice that they would take up BITS cases against India after the 2G licenses given to them were cancelled by the Supreme Court in April 2012.   The company Sistema invoked the treaty between India and Russia, while Telenor invoked the agreement with Singapore through which the telecom firm routed its investment, according to an Indian Express report, which also quoted a government official:   “We need to relook clauses in such treaties in order to ensure that such an eventuality does not happen in the future again.”

·  There are two known pending cases taken in international tribunals against Vietnam.  In 2010 , U.S. businessman Michael L. Mackenzie, filed a case claiming that Vietnamese authorities failed to protect his investments in a resort development project in Vietnam.  In 2011, the company Dialasie SAS sued Vietnam under the France-Vietnam BIT.  Dialasie had a contract with Vietnam’s social security agency to operate a private dialysis clinic in Ho Chi Minh City but it was closed in 2006 amidst a series of disputes with local health-care authorities. (Source: Luke Eric Peterson, IA Reports).

·  In November 2012, a US energy company Lone Pine Resources sued  Canada under the investment chapter of the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) for $250 million because the Quebec provincial government declared a moratorium on fracking (a method of obtaining shale gas) and also banned drilling below the St. Lawrence River, which the company claims is a violation of its drilling permit. (Source:  The Star, Ottawa; and Globe and Mail, 15 Nov. 2012).

The ease with which investors are able to bring and win cases against governments for such a wide range of issues is due to the nature of the investment agreements.

First, the definition of “investment” which is the subject of the treaties is usually very broad, covering direct investment, portfolio investment, loans, franchises, licenses, contracts, intellectual property and other assets.  Investors can bring up cases in claiming that their rights to any of these have been violated. 

Second, the treaties grant national treatment , “fair and equitable treatment” and investor protection to investors. The definitions of these are so flexible that investors are able to claim their rights are violated for a wide range of reasons.

Third, many of the treaties prevent governments from controlling or regulating inflows and outflows of capital, and some restrict or disallow governments from imposing performance requirements on foreign companies.

Fourth, the treaties prohibit expropriation of the investments.  The definition of “expropriation” is very broad; it includes direct expropriation such as takeovers of property but also indirect expropriation including “regulatory takings”, or the implementation of new policy measures that affect the potential revenue and profits of the investors.  Thus, investors have sued governments for changes to or cancellation of contracts, and for health and environmental policies and regulations.

Fifth, some of the treaties allow for investors to directly sue governments in international tribunals, including ICSID, the Washington-based and World Bank-linked tribunal mentioned in most investment treaties. These cases  have caused many governments to divert scarce time and resources to defend several cases.

Sixth, the arbitration system is riddled with major weaknesses that are not found in normal courts. In many cases, the tribunal members are lawyers who have also acted for investors in other cases.  For example, in the case taken by Dialasie against Vietnam, the chair of the tribunal is a European lawyer who has also worked extensively as counsel for investors in many other cases.

According to international trade and investment expert, Chakravarthi Raghavan:  “The ICSID panels are constituted of lawyers who sometimes are on panel, and sometimes suing for firms against governments, and don't have any obligation to disclose conflicts of interest.  It is time that BITs and ICSID system and these quite arbitrary, 'arbitration' panels are exposed.”

Seventh, the BITS arbitration cases are shrouded in secrecy.  They are not held in the open, and the existence or results of cases are not officially made known.

Eighth, it is difficult for a country to exit from a BIT even if it has decided it is against its interests, as many BITs have a “survival clause”;  the country is bound by its provisions 10-15 years after giving notice of exiting.

The growing number of cases could also be due to the setting up of law firms, especially in the US and Europe, that specialise in investment disputes, and which encourage investors to take up cases in order to profit or benefit.

The BITs as well as FTAs’ investment component have caused outrage among public interest groups which are concerned that these treaties prevent or punish the implementation of required health, safety, environmental and developmental measures.

Governments, especially in developing countries, are also increasingly concerned.  Faced with a multitude of law suits, several governments have recently taken action to review or revise their investment treaties.  

South Africa, after completing a review of its BITS, has decided not to sign any new BITS, will attempt to exit from or re-negotiate existing ones,  and will formulate a new model BIT.

Australia, in April 2011, announced it would not agree to including investor-state dispute settlement provisions in its BITS and free trade agreements.

India in April 2012 announced it is reviewing its BITS, especially their dispute resolution component, after facing the threat of suits arising from a Supreme Court order nullifying the award of 2G contracts to several foreign telecommunication companies.

And some Latin American countries including Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia have expressed their serious concerns about BITs and announced their exit from ICSID.

The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which has been a major promoter of BITS, is also changing its mind about the benefits of these treaties.   It now distinguishes between the normal BITS which it calls “agreements for freedom of investors” and a new type of BITS which it terms “investment agreements for sustainable development”, and it is promoting the move from the first to the second type.

With so many problems arising and so many cases being taken against countries, the review and reform of investment treaties should be accelerated at both national and international levels.
Martin Khor is the Executive Director of the South Centre.-