Circular migration of Indonesian low-skilled labour migrants to peninsular Malaysia: patterns, causes and consequences.

Abstract

The flow of international low-skilled labour migrants to Malaysia, especially from Indonesia, is one of the world’s most important migration corridors. With the increase in flow of undocumented migration, public resistance towards migrant workers, combined with the ongoing lack of pathways for gaining permanency and citizenship and the historical relationships and the geographical proximity of the two countries, Malaysia is facing added challenges in managing its migrant workers from Indonesia. Although Malaysia has become structurally dependent on low-skilled migrant workers it has not been able to develop policies that deliver ‘win-win-win’ outcomes to the host country, home country and to the migrants. In the last decade, migration theorists and policy makers have proposed circular migration as a preferred migration pattern between a developing nation with a labour surplus and a more developed country with labour shortages. While Indonesians may have adopted a long-standing de-facto pattern of circularity between Indonesia and Malaysia, at times actively facilitated by employers, there are no national policies or bilateral agreements that facilitate this circular migration. In this study, circular migration is compared with permanent migration which is, up until now, the most researched form of migration. This migrant-centred study examines the patterns, causes and consequences of both circular and permanent migration as practiced by Indonesian labour migrants in two selected states in Peninsular Malaysia to identify culturally sensitive migration strategies that fulfil the needs of the migrants’ home nation, the host nation and the needs of the migrants themselves. The study reports on a field survey of 858 low-skilled Indonesian migrant workers who have arrived in Malaysia since 1980 and are employed in six labour sectors (agriculture, construction, domestic work, manufacturing, plantation and services). Respondents are classified as circular migrants, permanent migrants and undecided migrants on the basis of their mobility intentions. They are further differentiated as to whether they are documented, undocumented or permanent residents. In total there are then nine categories of respondents. It is found that the circular migrants are more likely to be young single males while permanent migrants are more likely to be females with a working spouse in the host country. While circular migrants have stronger social linkages with their home country, permanent migrants have stronger linkages with the host country. However, circular migrants are more likely to have poorer living and working conditions. Their human capital is not seen as being transferable back to Indonesia. Circular migrants remitted more than permanent migrants and used their remittances for more than just consumption-related activities. While all migrants maintained some form of transnational mobility, permanent residents of all types faced fewer constraints than the documented and undocumented circular migrants in visiting home regularly. It is possible that circular migration may work in this situation if Malaysia provides repeat labour market access through long-term multi-entry visas which are specific to industries but not to employers, thus allowing migrants to transfer employers. Malaysia and Indonesia should co-operate in developing skills that migrants can apply upon their return and enabling migrants to maintain stronger ties with the home country through annual returns. When migration policies are too restrictive they seem to encourage undocumented migration. Transnational mobility need not challenge the sovereignty of nation-states. Rather, it can encourage co-operation and co-development. Migration polices need to be assessed for their management of human welfare. It is time now for migration theorists to move from a focus on economics and mobility to concern for human development.