logo
Unresolved issues cloud Gig Workers Bill

Unresolved issues cloud Gig Workers Bill

KUALA LUMPUR: The delay in the tabling of the Gig Workers Bill has raised critical questions about its preparedness to address the complexities of the gig economy and its economic impact, experts said.
The bill, which is aimed at regulating Malaysia's growing gig economy, has been delayed again for the third time.
Initially scheduled for its first reading in Parliament on Aug 14 this year, the postponement follows earlier delays.
Despite assurances from Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Human Resources Minister Steven Sim during the 'Sembang Santai Teh Tarik: Industri Gig' event on Aug 7, no official explanation has been provided, leaving gig workers and industry players frustrated.
The bill, heralded as the first of its kind globally, aims to provide protections for gig workers while fostering a fair and inclusive economy.
A cornerstone of the bill is the establishment of the Malaysian Gig Economy Commission, which will act as the sector's primary regulatory body.
While the bill has received widespread support, particularly from e-hailing associations, stakeholders have raised concerns about unresolved issues.
Child care services provider Kiddocare head of business development Rahman Hussin emphasised the need for a regulatory impact analysis before introducing new legislation.
He also raised concerns about setting a minimum wage for gig workers, noting that defining minimum working hours could conflict with the flexible nature of gig work.
"The essence of gig work is flexibility. Workers decide their own schedules, and imposing minimum hours could undermine this," Rahman said.
The Malaysian Bar Council has also weighed in, recommending clearer provisions on Social Security Organisation (Socso) contributions for gig workers engaged across multiple platforms.
They called for further clarification on the consultative council's powers, warning that limitations on competition and innovation could lead to higher service costs for consumers.
The council, in a statement, also flagged the bill's strict prohibition on deductions from gig workers' incomes, tips and rewards, and urged flexibility for scenarios such as overcharging consumers or loans with platform providers.
Additionally, it cautioned against regulatory overlaps between the Human Resource Ministry and Transport Ministry in regulating e-hailing and p-hailing drivers, which could create inconsistencies.
The gig economy's rapid growth highlights the importance of addressing these concerns, exeprts said.
Policymakers face challenges in balancing worker protections with platform providers' operational needs, they added.
While the delay is a setback, experts argue that thorough legislation is necessary to avoid loopholes or unintended consequences.
Economist specialising in Southeast Asian development Doris Liew told Business Times that a key concern of the gig worker bill is the risk of additional costs being transferred to consumers.
She added that for drivers, stricter rules and the potential introduction of mandatory minimum working hours could further strain their already slim margins.
"The delay in tabling the bill could be due to many reasons, such as parliamentary scheduling, or even how the public might react once the details are revealed.
"Still, with more than 4,000 stakeholders already consulted, the first reading should not come as much of a surprise if it truly takes their views into account," she added.
Liew pointed out that the larger issue is whether the country is truly ready to implement the bill.
She highlighted that while the gig economy is now deeply embedded in daily life and the wider economy, it has long functioned without proper regulation.
"This has left workers facing persistent problems, including weak workers protection, little social security and limited pathways for upward mobility.
"Whether the first version of the bill can fix all these gaps is uncertain. But it is at least a step in the right direction that the government is finally moving to address them," Liew said.
She emphasised that what is important now is ensuring policies are flexible enough to address real on-the-ground needs, rather than being tied to rigid rules that could soon become outdated.
As Malaysia seeks to position itself as a global leader in gig economy regulation, the successful passage of the Gig Workers Bill must be approached with careful consideration and time, only then it could serve as a model for other nations, experts said.
For now, they added, gig workers and industry players await updates, hopeful that the legislation will deliver the clarity and protections they need.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Home Minister presents National Registration (Amendment) Bill 2025 to Parliament, expanding biometric data powers
Home Minister presents National Registration (Amendment) Bill 2025 to Parliament, expanding biometric data powers

Malay Mail

time40 minutes ago

  • Malay Mail

Home Minister presents National Registration (Amendment) Bill 2025 to Parliament, expanding biometric data powers

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 20 — The National Registration (Amendment) Bill 2025 was tabled for the first time at the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said. The bill will also be tabled for the second and third reading during this Parliament session. It aims to amend the National Registration Act 1959 (Act 78), including amending Section 2 to include a new definition of biometric data under Clause 2 and Subsection 6(2) of the same act are to enhance the Minister's power to make regulations under Clause 3. Subclause 3(a) will seek to replace paragraph 6(2)(d) of Act 78 to empower the Minister to make regulations to provide for the collection and recording of biometric data and the conditions that may be imposed on the collection and recording of biometric data, while Subclause 3(b) will seek to amend paragraph 6(2)(e) of Act 78 to empower the Minister to make regulations to provide for controls on the use and information in identity cards. Also, Subclause 3(c) will seek to delete paragraph 6(2)(j) of Act 78 which gives the Minister the power to prescribe the maximum charge for taking photographs since no charge is imposed for taking photographs. The amendment will also insert a new section 6A into Act 78 to give the Minister the power, with the approval of the public prosecutor, to make regulations to prescribe the offences that can be compounded and the methods and procedures for compounding such offences. The clause also seeks to give the director-general the power to compound offences that can be compounded with the written consent of the public prosecutor. — Bernama

Misguided: Why the HRD levy must never be wage subsidy
Misguided: Why the HRD levy must never be wage subsidy

Malaysiakini

timean hour ago

  • Malaysiakini

Misguided: Why the HRD levy must never be wage subsidy

LETTER | I refer to the recent proposal by Human Resources Minister Steven Sim to permit employers to utilise up to RM2 billion from the Human Resources Development (HRD) levy funds to pay the salaries of newly hired university and technical and vocational education and training graduates beginning Sept 1. Frankly, I am shocked. This proposal represents a fundamental departure from the original mandate and philosophy of the Human Resource Development Corporation (HRDCorp) - a mandate clearly enshrined in the Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad (PSMB) Act 2001. It deserves serious scrutiny because it risks eroding both the integrity of the levy and the long-term development of Malaysia's human capital. Under Article 3 of the PSMB Act, the HRDCorp's principal purpose is to promote the training and development of employees, apprentices, and trainees through the imposition and utilisation of a training levy. Article 22(2)(a) further underscores that the levy must be expended only for activities that 'promote, develop and upgrade' the skills of employees, and for the establishment or maintenance of training infrastructure. In other words, the levy is not - and has never been - intended as a wage subsidy. It is a training fund designed to promote structured, continuous, and meaningful upskilling of the Malaysian workforce. Allowing these funds to be diverted towards paying salaries would effectively sever the vital link between levy contributions and training outcomes - a link that forms the very backbone of levy-based training systems across the world. It is arguably an ultra vires (beyond the powers) use of funds under the PSMB Act, which recognises the levy as a ring-fenced training fund. If the intention is to support graduate employment, then this should be done through normal fiscal channels, not through the misappropriation of a specialised fund established for a very different and critical purpose. Fundamental flaws There are several fundamental flaws in Sim's proposal. First, it sets a dangerous precedent: once the training levy is converted into a wage-subsidy mechanism, reversing the policy becomes politically difficult. The HRDCorp risks morphing into a politically driven institution rather than a professional body tasked with building workforce capabilities. Second, it will discourage employers from investing in genuine, future-focused skills development. Faced with the option of using levy funds to offset payroll costs, many companies - particularly small and medium enterprises - will logically opt to minimise training expenditure. In the end, real upskilling programmes will be crowded out. Third, it sends precisely the wrong message to graduates. The core challenge facing Malaysian graduates today is not the lack of a salary, but the absence of practical skills, real-world exposure, and industry-relevant competencies. What they urgently need are structured apprenticeship programmes, experiential learning opportunities, and industry placement schemes - not wage subsidies that do little to build capability. Damaging longer-term impact In the longer term, the impact will be even more damaging. Training budgets will shrink, high-quality upskilling programmes may be postponed or cancelled, and Malaysia's overall workforce competitiveness will decline. The HRDCorp was established specifically to safeguard against this scenario by ring-fencing training funds. Once that ring-fence is breached, the sustainability of the entire human capital development model is seriously compromised. Most importantly, graduate unemployment is a structural problem linked to the quality of higher education and its weak alignment with industry needs. It cannot be solved sustainably by permitting companies to use training funds to pay salaries. That would merely shift the burden from the public budget to the levy while leaving the underlying problems untouched. In a nutshell, Sim's proposal contradicts not only the letter but also the spirit of the PSMB Act. It undermines the long-term development of Malaysia's human capital by diverting resources away from genuine skills upgrading. If the government wishes to subsidise graduate employment, it should do so transparently through the general fiscal budget - not by dismantling a training levy system that was designed to build a competitive and highly skilled national workforce. The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

- Is KLIA 'counter setting' a symptom of deeper migrant exploitation?
- Is KLIA 'counter setting' a symptom of deeper migrant exploitation?

Barnama

time2 hours ago

  • Barnama

- Is KLIA 'counter setting' a symptom of deeper migrant exploitation?

Opinions on topical issues from thought leaders, columnists and editors. The recent detention of an enforcement officer at KL International Airport (KLIA) Terminal 1 has renewed public scrutiny over a clandestine practice known as 'counter setting'. Last November, nearly 50 immigration officers were reassigned following investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) into a similar syndicate operating at KLIA. This tactic, where individuals are allowed to bypass formal immigration procedures, raises serious concerns not only regarding border security and official corruption but also about structural vulnerabilities in Malaysia's migration management, labour demands, and institutional accountability. A senior immigration officer, believed to be the mastermind behind the network, is expected to face charges over a human trafficking ring that allegedly facilitated the unlawful entry of foreign nationals without immigration clearance. The act of 'counter-setting', which involves corruption at borders, is a well-recognised enabler of both human trafficking and migrant smuggling. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) identifies bribery and abuse of power as systemic 'pull factors' that facilitate transnational crime. In this context, 'counter setting' is not just negligence, it is an institutional gateway for illicit entry under the guise of administrative authority. However, criminalising rogue officers should not automatically lead to the assumption that all individuals who passed through these compromised checkpoints are victims of trafficking or knowingly complicit in smuggling. Trafficking vs. smuggling: Distinct legal frameworks Public discourse frequently conflates 'migration', 'trafficking', and 'smuggling', an issue compounded by certain NGO and academic narratives that generalise irregular movement as either criminal or victimhood, obscuring nuanced legal distinctions. Under both the UN Trafficking Protocol (Palermo Protocol) and Malaysia's Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM), human trafficking consists of three essential elements: Act (e.g., recruitment, transportation), Means (e.g., coercion, fraud, abuse of power), and Purpose (e.g., exploitation such as forced labour or sexual servitude). However, ATIPSOM does not clearly criminalise attempts to traffic nor does it automatically recognise someone as a trafficked person simply because they entered the country irregularly. As studies have established, most trafficking victims enter Malaysia legally, which means that they are in possession of valid passport and are even given a 30-day visa free entry if they are from Southeast Asian countries. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to establish the key component of 'exploitation' unless it is evidently demonstrated at the border entry. Mere facilitation without evidence of exploitation does not constitute trafficking. By contrast, migrant smuggling involves consensual facilitation of unlawful entry in exchange for financial gain. Once the border is crossed, the smuggling transaction ends. In such cases, the migrant is typically treated as an offender who has breached immigration laws. An individual's status only becomes 'irregular' if immigration officers on arrival fail to stamp or process their entry. This administrative omission does not by itself amount to criminal conduct or evidence of trafficking. This brings us to a critical question: how can authorities establish that the individuals who entered via 'counter setting' were trafficked, smuggled, or simply irregular migrants? Without evidence of coercion or exploitation, these individuals remain at best suspects or irregular entrants. As many of us have experienced, it is extremely difficult for individuals to board international flights to Malaysia without valid travel documents. Multiple layers of checks include immigration clearance at the point of departure, airline document verification, and pre-boarding checks by flight crew. This may not necessarily be the case when entering Malaysia through land. For example, Malaysia's land borders, especially in areas such as Rantau Panjang, Sungai Golok, and Wang Kelian, are far more porous. In Wang Kelian, a one-kilometre 'no man's land' separates Thai and Malaysian posts, making unsupervised crossings possible. Arrests involving undocumented Myanmar nationals and the unregulated movement of Malaysians into Thailand highlight systemic gaps in surveillance and border management. Labour agents and recruitment networks Malaysia's fluctuating labour policies such as the temporary freeze (and subsequent lifting) on the intake of Bangladeshi workers, for example, have created a market of desperation. To fulfil recruitment contracts or avoid refunding fees, unscrupulous agents may resort to corrupt arrangements with enforcement personnel to smuggle workers into the country. One major concern is the licensing regime. In Malaysia, work agents are not required to possess individual licences. Licences are tied to agencies, creating a regulatory blind spot. Some agents operate without registration; others exploit legal platforms while engaging in parallel black-market operations. Disturbingly, many such agents are foreign nationals already residing in Malaysia, which helps them gain the trust of vulnerable migrant communities. Upon arrival, many of these migrants are placed in overcrowded accommodation and squalid conditions. They are also subjected to long hours of work, meagre pay, and minimal legal protection. While exploitative, these conditions do not always rise to the legal threshold of trafficking unless all the trafficking elements are clearly present. Malaysia must move beyond reactive enforcement and address the systemic factors that enable counter setting and migration-related abuse. A rights-based and reform-oriented strategy should include: stricter employer vetting procedures and meaningful penalties for labour exploitation; crackdowns on unlicensed and unscrupulous agents, including those operating under legal facades; enhance institutional oversight across border enforcement agencies to prevent corruption; implement a victim-centred approach that treats irregular entrants as potential victims unless complicity is proven; and ratify the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. As a conclusion, it is evident that the KLIA 'counter setting' scandal is not just about corrupt officers. It exposes systemic cracks in Malaysia's migration governance, labour recruitment processes, and institutional safeguards. While prosecuting offenders is necessary, structural reforms must follow to protect migrants' rights and preserve the integrity of our borders. To strike a balance between national security and human dignity, Malaysia must clearly distinguish between 'victims', 'offenders', and 'irregular migrants', and, above all, recognise the human realities behind each case. -- BERNAMA Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid (haezreena@ is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store