Employers know their workers’ training needs best

 

From Roslan Sharif

There have been numerous letters over the last few weeks on the micro-credential scheme that the Human Resource Development Corporation (HRDC) intends to introduce from Aug 15.

Under the scheme, employers are required to pay RM300 per trainee for each training session they send employees to.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Ads by 

This payment is over and above the mandated levy that all employers cough up every month to HRDC, as well as training fees imposed by HRDC-appointed training providers.

Employers and employer representatives, including the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM), and affected stakeholders have since called for proper consultation on the imposition of the micro-credential levy.

They have, across the board, expressed disbelief that HRDC is proceeding without the industry’s input, on top of seemingly transforming itself from a regulator to a profit centre.

Not to mention the obvious – that the micro-credential payment will unreasonably amplify the cost of doing business domestically.

They have also repeatedly lamented that HRDC should not be teaching employers how to conduct their businesses as well as oversee the methods employers deploy to conduct employees’ training and development.

After all, employers know best, based on their peculiar, specialised requirements and technical needs, technological development and digitising of industries, evolving customer demands and growth markets that they serve.

In addition, Section 7 of the HRDF Act 2001 states that “the board of HRDC should include, among others, 10 persons representing the employers”.

The current board is represented by seven employers, representing FMM, the Malaysian Employers Federation, the Malaysian Associated Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the SME Association of Malaysia, Petronas, Nouvelle Beauty Centre and the BTC Group.

What happened to the other three slots? Why are the Malay or Chinese chambers not included?

Furthermore, Malaysia is courting foreign direct investment and yet, there is not a single representative from foreign chambers of commerce on the board, nor were they included for consultation on the micro-credential scheme.

They include the American Malaysian Chamber of Commerce, the European Chamber of Commerce in Malaysia and the Japanese Chamber of Trade and Industry Malaysia.

The international trade and industry ministry and the Malaysian Investment Development Authority must take note of this oversight.

They should act promptly and commit to doing the needful before Malaysia is turned into a laughing stock in the eyes of our neighbours and investors.

Not only is the board not adequately represented by employers, as laid out under the HRDF Act 2001, the HRDC management allegedly has the authority to run HRDC the way it sees fit.

This is not the first time that HRDC is embroiled in a controversy. In 2014, the then CEO of HRDC left over his alleged disagreement with a contract to a college said to have no track record in running the “Recognition of Prior Learning” (RPL) programme.

Sources back then said this internal matter involved a high-level personnel shake-up.

There was another CEO who was said to have stepped down over funds allegedly being misused, including sponsoring some pressmen for a three-week junket study tour in Germany, in addition to paying bonuses and allowances deemed “exorbitant” to some management staff.

HRDC, as a supposedly neutral federal agency, was also alleged to have sponsored concerts and events for the benefit of certain parties. - FMT

Roslan Sharif, a human resources director, is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.