TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, LABOUR AND LOCAL LEARNING PROCESSES IN MALAYSIAN INDUSTRY Draft
A. Wangel
Abstract:The transfer of technologies by the foreign electronic industries operating in Malaysia involves training of workers for various purposes. The upgrading of skills to assimilate the transferred technology aims at increasing productivity and product quality. Communicating awareness about work hazards is meant to reduce breakdowns in production and workers' accidents. How do the training paradigms, which transnationals introduce in their subsidiaries in Malaysia, interact with the preconditions of learning with the local labour force? In shaping local learning processes, what is the scope for workers and trade unions to articulate their interests and define the issues, in particular with regard to the working environment and the external environment? The paper will discuss these questions by exploring the significance of labour market structures, labour-management relations, concepts of knowledge in training, and learning cultures. I. Technology transfer and the working environment Within the applied sciences on the working environment, ergonomics has extensively addressed issues related to international technology transfers. The approach of ergonomics to working environment problems in the Third World is based upon the view that an optimal transfer of Western technology must include adapting the workplace and the work tools to the climate of the host country, the body proportions of the population and to a lesser extent, culturally conditioned behaviour at work. A prominent French researcher, Alain Wisner, distances himself from this limited focus on 'appropriate technology' primarily in terms of technical requirements. His concept of 'anthropotechnological islands' relates to a complete transfer of technical installations, machines, organisation and training methods carried out by a transnational corporation, typically through investing in a free production zone (Wisner 1985a). He claims that these corporations are able to achieve working environment standards equivalent to those in their country of origin. Wisner says that this result can be explained by the 'micro society' which the transnational corporation builds around its factory. Thus, 'the contradictions between the local society and the modern technology are resolved by creating a micro-society of the enterprise. There, one will find, unchanged, the same technological and social structures as in our country’ [AW translation] (Wisner 1985b, 82). In Malaysia, one may identify such 'total' transfers, in particular among the foreign owned companies in the electronic industry. Safety norms, safety organisation, work procedures and a regular updating of working environment information are transferred from the parent company. The results of these efforts are closely monitored through statistical analysis and evaluated by visiting inspectors from the parent company. However, do these observations imply that safety practices are developed and maintained in production to the benefit of workers? The discussion on 'anthropotechnological islands' has also inspired a thesis about a kind of diffusion which claims that because these companies are an important exception from the generally poor safety standards in the recipient country, they can through their example contribute to improving these standards (International Labour Office 1984, 3). In Malaysia, at least four different experiences contradict this notion about diffusion. First, the government considers foreign pressure e.g. through the I.L.O. to implement international standards as contrary to the objectives of an export-oriented industrialisation policy. Pressure for such standards is perceived as protectionist measures initiated by industrially developed countries to deny the Third World their comparative advantage and potential for economic development. This view has been emphasized by the Labour Ministers of the ASEAN countries on several occasions (Wangel 1988). Second, due to their strategic importance, the transnational companies constitute a strong lobby, which often push for, such things as prolonged periods of adaptation, when new regulations on work hazards are proposed. Third, and for the same reason, the transnational corporations can influence priorities in the allocation of government resources for occupational safety and health services. Research and training facilities can be oriented towards their specific needs. By offering financial and technical support, the companies can divert attention from problems in the agricultural sector and in small scale industries where most of the working population is employed. Fourth, the experience from the joint committees, which transnational corporations have established in free production zones and which may include a subcommittee on occupational safety, shows that the focus is on an internal sharing of their combined expertise, not on making this knowledge resource available to a wider group of companies. Relations to the public concern the promotion of a positive image of the working conditions in the transnational factories, e.g. by public exhibitions and sponsoring. These companies do represent an avant garde in terms of expertise on the working environment, but they have little impact outside their enclave position. The image of a wellorganised effort makes the enforcing authorities confident that this sector needs less attention. Thus, the mere presence of expertise does not guarantee that a transfer of technology in terms of how to achieve better safety standards will disperse to the receiving country as a whole. Having raised specific points against the notion of diffusion, the core assumption of the concept on 'anthropotechnological islands' about a complete transfer should to be addressed in more general terms. At the macro level, the significance of the labour market structures and the socio-political context in Malaysia needs to be discussed. Labour and safety politics The labour market in Malaysia is characterized by tight regulation of conflicts, restrictions on the development of trade union organising and the almost complete exclusion of the trade union movement from national politics. The structuring of power relations between employers and workers stems from the government's objective of checking wagesetting as a key factor in the competition for foreign direct investments. The range of the restrictions corresponds to the fundamental notion of the government that the labour movement does not have any legitimate political role, neither regarding conditions of direct relevance to the labour force nor broader social policy initiatives. The labour laws are amended unilaterally by the government coalition after superficial consultations within a tripartite system of a purely formal nature. Conflict resolution is conducted within a framework of elaborate, institutionalized legal procedures. However, this legalism is perceived by the trade union movement as strongly biassed in favour of the employers. It does not create the basis for the development of contractual and binding relations of mutual benefit which could take the heat out of the potential conflict when a collective agreement has expired. The fragmentation and the effort to obstruct trade union activities reflects the determination of an authoritarian regime to check any source of opposition. Wage costs have to be controlled within all job grades, apparently without considering the fact that the introduction of advanced technologies in some industries reduces the importance of the wage factor. The continuous struggle for a higher basic salary, bonuses, rates for overtime and shift work and improvement of other benefits is also due to the absence of policies concerning welfare and redistribution among income groups. Workers who are forced to leave the labour market because of dismissal, permanent illness or retirement are not covered by social schemes which in any way correspond to their loss of income. Insurance companies offer workers in the higher salary grades compensation. Moreover, collective schemes are offered via trade unions. The persistent discrediting of trade unions in the media claim that union organisations undermine national development objectives and that union leaders abuse membership fees and are occupied only by pursuing personal interests. The government pays particular attention to the international contacts of Malaysian union leaders and their alleged tarnishing of the country during frequent visits overseas. The pronounced opposition of the Prime Minister against the critique of rainforest logging raised by Western non-governmental organisations for the protection of the environment, against the protectionism of the West and its efforts to introduce standards on human rights and democracy and his position as spokesperson for the legitimate interests of the South provides a convenient backdrop for claiming that Malaysian trade union leaders conspire with foreign agents to destroy the country. Thus, as concluded in a study on safety politics in Malaysia (Wangel 1997), the basis for building collective strength is severely limited; the possibilities for industrial action are narrowly defined and conflicts are contained in compulsory arbitration procedures by which the authorities can exercise almost complete discretion in their decisions. Their main strategy is to prolong conflicts over time and thus while conflicts are being contained to disintegrate or dissolve the support of union members in the particular company. The fundamental view of the government is that disruptive conflicts should not develop on the labour market. As part of an ideological stance against institutions in Western societies, the Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, delivered this statement defending the strong regulatory interventions of the Malaysian state: 'In a civilised society...-the legal system is also devised to help resolve whatever disputes in an organised matter so that the d