Groups call for Sexual Harassment Act

KUALA LUMPUR, June 28 — Trade union groups today objected to sexual harassment provisions being included in a section of the Employment Act rather than translating them to a stand-alone legislation.

The groups, which are part of an umbrella body called “Malaysians for Decent Living Wage”, also rejected several other amendments to the Act, tabled in Parliament last week.

Speaking to reporters here, Friends of Women president Irene Xavier said according to the sexual harassment section of the Act, women earning more than RM2,000 were excluded.

Additionally, she said, the act lacks a workable definition of “sexual harassment”.


“There is no comprehensive definition of sexual harassment. This one lacks it so it will be difficult for anyone to lodge a complaint,” she said.

Klang MP Charles Santiago (picture) also complained about the inclusion of the words “for labour” in the definition of “contractors” in Section 2 of the Act, saying that it would only create “job insecurity” for workers.

“This amendment has serious implications on workers... the employment pattern in Malaysia will change and it will create job insecurity because you will see contract jobs becoming more popular than regular jobs.

“When this happens, outsourcing becomes popular, as opposed to regular jobs. When you join a company, you typically stay for a long time but now, you work on contract for one, two or three years and you are entitled to minimal benefits and lower salaries,” he said.

Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) former president Syed Shahir Mohamad Jalil also pointed to the proposed amendment to Section 19(2) of the Employment Act which he said would allow employers to delay overtime wages by more than a month.

According to the amendment, an employer would have to pay his employees for work done on a rest day, gazetted public holiday and overtime “not later than the last day of the next wage period”.

“So if I work overtime in June, I might have to wait until the end of July to get paid because the employer is granted leeway to do so,” he said.

He pointed out that many low-income workers relied heavily on their overtime wages to support their families.

“But if employers can delay it to the following wage period, it would affect their daily expenses,” he said.