US shouldn’t misuse immunity to deprive basic rights of ex-employee

FMT:

US shouldn’t misuse immunity to deprive basic rights of ex-employee


The industrial court is set to deliver its verdict on the case of unfair dismissal of a security guard by the United States embassy.




From P Ramasamy

The fate of L Subramaniam, a former security guard at the United States embassy, hangs in the balance. The only question that remains is if he will finally get the justice that is due to him.

After two days of hearing this month, the industrial court has yet to return its verdict.

The final verdict will determine whether there is any merit to the “diplomatic immunity” argument advanced by the US embassy over his dismissal.

Subramaniam, 54, was dismissed as a security guard by the US embassy in 2008. He was also dismissed without any reasons given.

He was merely entrusted with opening and closing the gates at the US embassy.

Contrary to claims made by US officials at the embassy, Subramaniam was never involved in any security matters involving the embassy.

Prior to 2018, two different human resource ministers refused to transfer the case to be adjudicated by the industrial court.

However, when Pakatan Harapan (PH) took over Putrajaya in 2018, the matter was finally referred to the industrial court.

The US embassy sought to nullify the case involving Subramaniam’s dismissal by using the “diplomatic immunity” argument.

The matter was then referred to the Court of Appeal and then to the Federal Court.

Both the courts held the view that the matter should be referred back to the industrial court once again.

The matter was finally heard by the industrial court recently.

The question before the court is: whether there is any merit to the application by Subramaniam on unfair dismissal or whether the claims by the US embassy for “diplomatic immunity” can nullify the case of unfair dismissal.

There is such a thing as diplomatic immunity but there is no blanket immunity.

If Subramaniam was only responsible for the opening and closing of the embassy’s gates, I don’t understand how the question of diplomatic immunity is applicable.

Whether the US embassy has blanket immunity on all matters is something that has to be decided by the court.

Even if there is an argument in support of the immunity of the US embassy, it is mind-boggling to note that the US, as a superpower, would resort to such an argument in defiance of the plight and misery of an ordinary worker.

Given Subramaniam’s economic and social conditions, the US embassy could have simply reinstated him after his dismissal or paid him reasonable compensation.

But why drag the matter for 15 years on the question of the misplaced principle of immunity.

I am sure the US has expended much money and energy in taking up the matter, but what is the purpose of such defiance against a poor ordinary security guard?

The US preaches to the world about democracy, human rights and justice.

But where are these ideas when it comes to giving a fair deal to Subramaniam?

If the US cannot even resolve this matter of a simple dismissal, how is the country going to settle international disputes and rivalries?

How can such an argument on immunity be used or misused to deny the basic fundamental rights of a human being?

Shame on the US!



P Ramasamy is Penang deputy chief minister II.