Danaratna’s total remuneration of $11,212 over three years, excluding accommodation and food, translates to approximately 2.24 million Sri Lankan rupees. While this amount is modest by Australian standards, it represents a substantial sum in the Sri Lankan context.
Editorial
The recent Australian court ruling against Himalee Subhashini de Silya Arunatilaka, a distinguished Sri Lankan diplomat previously stationed in Canberra, has ignited a heated debate over the treatment of domestic workers. The case, highlighted by Priyanka Danaratna’s allegations of ‘modern slavery,’ raises critical questions about the conditions under which Sri Lankan housemaids work abroad, particularly in diplomatic residences. The specifics of Danaratna’s agreement prior to accepting the position, which may have facilitated exploitation, remain unclear. Ultimately, the responsibility for addressing these issues falls on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which must respond to the case and ensure appropriate measures are taken.
 |
| Himalee Arunatilaka was the deputy high commissioner of Sri Lanka in Australia between 2015 and 2018.(Flickr: UN Photo/Jean Marc Ferré under Creative Commons) |
Danaratna’s experience, as detailed in legal proceedings and media reports, presents a troubling picture of exploitation, assuming all accounts are accurate. Employed by Arunatilaka from 2015 to 2018, Danaratna faced excessively low wages and long working hours. The Federal Court’s ruling, which imposed a penalty of over $543,000 (approximately 108,600,000 Sri Lankan rupees) for underpayment, far exceeds what the Sri Lankan diplomat would have earned during that period. This ruling has been described as a case of “modern slavery.” David Hillard, representing Danaratna, argues that her conditions were akin to slavery, citing a wage of approximately 65 cents per hour and the seizure of her passport as evidence of “severe mistreatment.”
However, the narrative surrounding this case, driven by both local and international media, seems to overlook several critical factors, particularly from the perspective of a developing country like Sri Lanka. The judgment appears to be a partial reflection of broader challenges faced by Sri Lankan diplomats and their domestic staff, failing to account for the multifarious interplay of international, local, and home-country laws.
The financial disparity between Sri Lanka and developed nations is significant. Danaratna’s total remuneration of $11,212 over three years, excluding accommodation and food, translates to approximately 2.24 million Sri Lankan rupees. While this amount is modest by Australian standards, it represents a substantial sum in the Sri Lankan context. For many Sri Lankan housemaids, such wages might be perceived as relatively high compared to local salaries, including those of executive-level positions. Thus, the remuneration in question fell short of Australian standards, it was deemed relatively substantial within the Sri Lankan context. Consequently, the judgment rendered against Arunatilaka, although crucial for addressing issues of exploitation, does not adequately account for the diplomatic context and the complexities inherent in reconciling differing legal systems
Moreover, the recruitment and deployment of domestic workers for diplomatic residences often involve pre-arranged agreements that may not align perfectly with the legal norms of host countries. Ensuring compliance with local laws while adhering to the operational realities of diplomatic missions is challenging. Additionally, there have been numerous cases where individuals, having agreed to work under specific conditions, later escaped and sought political asylum citing alleged “human rights” violations. While the true intentions behind such cases remain unclear, a discernible pattern exists that warrants scrutiny.
The portrayal of this case as a clear-cut instance of “modern slavery” risks oversimplifying the issue. It is essential to consider several factors: strengthening protective systems for domestic workers abroad, providing clearer guidelines for diplomats to navigate local employment laws, and understanding the cultural and economic contexts of both employees and employers.
The court’s judgment in the Arunatilaka case highlights significant concerns about worker exploitation but also suggests that allegations against a diplomat may be strategically constructed to bolster the complainant’s position. The complexities inherent in diplomatic assignments necessitate a balanced approach, considering both the rights of workers and the operational constraints faced by diplomats. This reflects a critical oversight of the unique challenges faced by diplomats, revealing a profound misunderstanding from the diplomat’s perspective. This case accentuates the need for a comprehensive review and reform of current protocols and legal frameworks.
Post a Comment