No, it's bizarre that this isn't normal.

The law is an expression of our desire that our industry doesn't exploit forced labour. The fact that this mostly only counts when the forced labour takes place in our own country is a weird historical detail, long outdated by globalisation.

Either you think that forced labour in Malaysia is OK in which case this seems bizarre, or you think it's not OK in which case we need a way for the law to discourage forced labour in Malaysia. The only way it can do that is through the supply chain.

▲

randlet 3 hours ago | parent [-]

"Either you think that forced labour in Malaysia is OK in which case this seems bizarre"

It would be an interesting poll to see what the populace actually things about this statement...

	▲	bjackman an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think revealed preferences are more useful than a poll would be. "Do you think forced labour in Malaysia is OK" - nobody answers yes to this. "Are you willing to make sacrifices, such as imposing liability on local business, in order to discourage forced labour in Malaysia?" - this is the question. This pattern applies to a lot of stuff. All politicians claim to have a solution to the housing crisis. But most "solutions" are suspiciously absent of downsides. If nothing you propose involves sacrificing anything or creating any losers I conclude you don't actually care about the housing crisis. You can use this on your managers too. "What are we gonna do about the tech debt?" If the answer doesn't involve delaying features then you should interpret it as "nothing".