MTUC leadership saga ends with Halim Mansor reelected president
Halim, who is also the secretary-general of the National Union of Petroleum and Chemical Industry Workers (NUPCIW), defeated the president of the Union of Pos Malaysia Clerical Workers Peninsular Malaysia (UPCW), Mohd Effendy Abdul Ghani, with a majority of nine votes.
The election, held during the MTUC Delegates Conference at the Ideal Convention Centre (IDCC) on Saturday and Sunday, saw Halim receive 227 votes compared to Effendy's 218.
The new leadership selection for the 2025–2027 term was conducted in accordance with a directive from the Court of Appeal and was attended by 453 delegates from across the country.
For the post of deputy president, Datuk Mohamed Dauzkaply Nor Ghazali of the Ikhtiar Malaysia Workers Union (Kepaim) won with a 24-vote majority.
The secretary-general's post, meanwhile, was won by Kamarul Bahrin Mansor from the National Union of Waste Management Workers (NUMW) with a seven-vote majority.
Kamarul Bahrin said the election process ran smoothly and marked a new chapter for the union's leadership.
"MTUC will continue to champion workers' rights as our predecessors have. As the national labour centre, we will continue to represent workers' interests to the government," he said.
On Aug 11, 2023, the Shah Alam High Court declared the MTUC Delegates Conference and its July 2022 leadership election null and void due to non-compliance with the organisation's constitution.
It later issued a stay order preventing the MTUC leadership from implementing any policy decisions until the appeal process was completed in the Court of Appeal.
Initially, MTUC filed an appeal, but on April 28, 2024, its general council decided to withdraw the appeal and instead focus on workers' rights, rather than internal disputes.
In February this year, the Court of Appeal ordered MTUC to conduct a fresh leadership election within 90 days, overseen by a joint special committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malaysiakini
37 minutes ago
- Malaysiakini
Do migrant workers deserve the same benefits as locals?
YOURSAY | 'Dignity at work is not a privilege, it is a right for everyone.' Guan Eng: No need minimum wage, EPF for existing migrant workers IndigoGoat3056: Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng made a troubling statement in Parliament on Aug 6, asserting that there is no need to mandate the RM1,700 minimum wage or Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contributions for existing migrant workers, arguing that Malaysia is not bound by certain International Labour Organisation conventions. He further cited Singapore's exclusion of Central Provident Fund contributions for migrant workers as justification. This is a deeply disappointing position. The DAP MP, in this case, is operating from a narrow capitalist mindset that clearly contradicts the spirit of the Federal Constitution, fundamental human rights principles, and the values of social justice. Lim's statement reflects an economic ideology that prioritises employer profits over fairness for all workers, particularly migrant workers, who are often among the most exploited. Legally, morally, and constitutionally, this reasoning is flawed. Malaysia's Federal Constitution, under Article 8, guarantees that 'all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.' This does not limit protection to citizens. It includes all persons, including non-citizens. Migrant workers who are lawfully present and employed in Malaysia are entitled to this equal protection. Any policy that denies them basic rights, such as minimum wage or EPF, is discriminatory. The Court of Appeal in Tak Tek Seng further clarified that the right to life under Article 5 includes the right to livelihood. Denying migrant workers fair wages and social protection is a denial of that livelihood - and a denial of dignity. In Kathiravelu Ganesan v Kojasa Holdings Bhd, the Court of Appeal held that a migrant worker qualifies as a 'workman' under Malaysian labour law and can bring claims for unfair dismissal under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. If the law recognises their right to challenge unfair dismissal, it must also uphold their right to minimum standards of compensation and retirement protection. Article 6 prohibits all forms of forced labour, regardless of nationality. Paying migrant workers below the wage floor and denying EPF contributions - while demanding full output - amounts to economic exploitation, in breach of the Constitution. Furthermore, Article 10 allows migrant workers to be members of trade unions, affirming their recognised role in the national workforce. Article 155 also provides reciprocal rights for Commonwealth citizens - a reminder that migrant workers are not to be treated as second-class. The idea that existing migrant workers - many of whom have served this country for years - can be excluded from protections just because they were hired earlier is not justifiable. It rewards employers for locking in unfair contracts and punishes workers who have already contributed significantly to Malaysia's economy. Malaysia does not need to wait for international treaties to act justly. Our own Constitution, courts, and conscience demand it. Migrant workers deserve minimum wage, EPF contributions, and equal labour rights - regardless of when they were hired or where they came from. Dignity at work is not a privilege; it is a right for everyone. TMataz: Agree. The minimum wage ruling should apply only to Malaysian citizens. Applying the same ruling to migrants only distracts from the more urgent focus on alleviating the living wage of our fellow Malaysians. An average Singaporean's income is SG$6,000 a month. Sadly, the average income for Malaysians is RM6,000 a month. I believe Malaysia should strive for at least half of that figure, due to our Malaysian equivalent educational literacy and the lower cost of living, which is why the average Malaysian should be earning RM9,900 per month. To progressively push the employer to improve their business productivity and retool their operations to meet today's technological demands, and to be better able to alleviate their Malaysian employees' income. It's not fair to put unfair constraints on local businesses and to force them to pay unreasonably high wages for menial jobs done by migrants. Thus, if we remove migrants from the national minimum wage ruling, then we are able to fast-track wages for our Malaysian citizen workers to double the current minimum. If there is a need to placate international labour rules, just do a separate minimum wage requirement for migrants. Coward: Our ex-finance minister is not showing any knowledge of the market. Minimum wage and EPF contributions for migrant workers are not there to protect them. Both are there to prevent them from undercutting locals. If employers don't have to respect them, then they are cheaper than locals from the employer's viewpoint. When that's the case, who will they employ? In most countries where employers contribute to pension funds, they are required to give migrant workers what they would have contributed to the funds for locals if they didn't have to open the same pension fund account for migrant workers. The people of Selangor: Who came up with the idea of EPF and minimum wages for migrant workers? How will such a policy or ruling benefit our country? What is the purpose of it? Do we want to encourage more migrant workers to come here? What we see is more illegal workers coming here instead. We should suggest better policies for local workers instead of migrant workers; these policies will only burden our employers or businesses and increase our cost of living. BlueGecko7216: Without equal minimum wages for migrants, it will lead to an influx of migrant workers, which is detrimental to local workers. There will also be an improvement in productivity in general. The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now. These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
Malaysiakini
4 hours ago
- Malaysiakini
Do migrant workers deserve the same benefits as locals?
YOURSAY | 'Dignity at work is not a privilege, it is a right for everyone.' Guan Eng: No need minimum wage, EPF for existing migrant workers IndigoGoat3056: Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng made a troubling statement in Parliament on Aug 6, asserting that there is no need to mandate the RM1,700 minimum wage or Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contributions for existing migrant workers, arguing that Malaysia is not bound by certain International Labour Organisation conventions. He further cited Singapore's exclusion of Central Provident Fund contributions for migrant workers as justification. This is a deeply disappointing position. The DAP MP, in this case, is operating from a narrow capitalist mindset that clearly contradicts the spirit of the Federal Constitution, fundamental human rights principles, and the values of social justice. Lim's statement reflects an economic ideology that prioritises employer profits over fairness for all workers, particularly migrant workers, who are often among the most exploited. Legally, morally, and constitutionally, this reasoning is flawed. Malaysia's Federal Constitution, under Article 8, guarantees that 'all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.' This does not limit protection to citizens. It includes all persons, including non-citizens. Migrant workers who are lawfully present and employed in Malaysia are entitled to this equal protection. Any policy that denies them basic rights, such as minimum wage or EPF, is discriminatory. The Court of Appeal in Tak Tek Seng further clarified that the right to life under Article 5 includes the right to livelihood. Denying migrant workers fair wages and social protection is a denial of that livelihood - and a denial of dignity. In Kathiravelu Ganesan v Kojasa Holdings Bhd, the Court of Appeal held that a migrant worker qualifies as a 'workman' under Malaysian labour law and can bring claims for unfair dismissal under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. If the law recognises their right to challenge unfair dismissal, it must also uphold their right to minimum standards of compensation and retirement protection. Article 6 prohibits all forms of forced labour, regardless of nationality. Paying migrant workers below the wage floor and denying EPF contributions - while demanding full output - amounts to economic exploitation, in breach of the Constitution. Furthermore, Article 10 allows migrant workers to be members of trade unions, affirming their recognised role in the national workforce. Article 155 also provides reciprocal rights for Commonwealth citizens - a reminder that migrant workers are not to be treated as second-class. The idea that existing migrant workers - many of whom have served this country for years - can be excluded from protections just because they were hired earlier is not justifiable. It rewards employers for locking in unfair contracts and punishes workers who have already contributed significantly to Malaysia's economy. Malaysia does not need to wait for international treaties to act justly. Our own Constitution, courts, and conscience demand it. Migrant workers deserve minimum wage, EPF contributions, and equal labour rights - regardless of when they were hired or where they came from. Dignity at work is not a privilege; it is a right for everyone. TMataz: Agree. The minimum wage ruling should apply only to Malaysian citizens. Applying the same ruling to migrants only distracts from the more urgent focus on alleviating the living wage of our fellow Malaysians. An average Singaporean's income is SG$6,000 a month. Sadly, the average income for Malaysians is RM6,000 a month. I believe Malaysia should strive for at least half of that figure, due to our Malaysian equivalent educational literacy and the lower cost of living, which is why the average Malaysian should be earning RM9,900 per month. To progressively push the employer to improve their business productivity and retool their operations to meet today's technological demands, and to be better able to alleviate their Malaysian employees' income. It's not fair to put unfair constraints on local businesses and to force them to pay unreasonably high wages for menial jobs done by migrants. Thus, if we remove migrants from the national minimum wage ruling, then we are able to fast-track wages for our Malaysian citizen workers to double the current minimum. If there is a need to placate international labour rules, just do a separate minimum wage requirement for migrants. Coward: Our ex-finance minister is not showing any knowledge of the market. Minimum wage and EPF contributions for migrant workers are not there to protect them. Both are there to prevent them from undercutting locals. If employers don't have to respect them, then they are cheaper than locals from the employer's viewpoint. When that's the case, who will they employ? In most countries where employers contribute to pension funds, they are required to give migrant workers what they would have contributed to the funds for locals if they didn't have to open the same pension fund account for migrant workers. The people of Selangor: Who came up with the idea of EPF and minimum wages for migrant workers? How will such a policy or ruling benefit our country? What is the purpose of it? Do we want to encourage more migrant workers to come here? What we see is more illegal workers coming here instead. We should suggest better policies for local workers instead of migrant workers; these policies will only burden our employers or businesses and increase our cost of living. BlueGecko7216: Without equal minimum wages for migrants, it will lead to an influx of migrant workers, which is detrimental to local workers. There will also be an improvement in productivity in general. The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now. These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
Malay Mail
21 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Appeals court rules EC acted unlawfully by barring voter in Johor polls over Covid status
PUTRAJAYA, Aug 6 — The Court of Appeal today ruled that the Election Commission's (EC) decision to bar a registered voter from casting his ballot in the 2022 Johor state election due to Covid-19 quarantine restrictions was unlawful. A three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Supang Lian, Datuk Wong Kian Kheong, and Datuk Ismail Brahim held that the EC had violated RK Tamileswaaran's constitutional right to vote under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution by preventing him from exercising his right to vote. 'The first respondent (EC) had committed an 'error of law' or an illegality in this case by denying the appellant's (Tamileswaaran's) right to vote in the election,' he said. In delivering the court's unanimous decision, Justice Wong said the High Court had erred in ruling that the EC's duty under Article 113 of the Federal Constitution to conduct elections was subject to the Covid-19 prevention SOP and the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (PCDA). 'The SOP and PCDA cannot restrain the EC's duty to conduct elections,' he said. Justice Wong issued a certiorari order to quash the EC's decision, and granted several declarations sought by Tamileswaaran. The court allowed Tamileswaaran's appeal to overturn the December 7, 2022, decision by the High Court in dismissing his judicial review. The court did not make any orders as to costs. While acknowledging that courts have the discretion to award monetary compensation for breach of the right to vote, Justice Wong said no constitutional compensation would be granted in this case. He said this was because the EC's decision was made based on the SOP in the interest of public health and safety, and its officers had acted in good faith in this case. In the judgment, Justice Wong held that the SOP and the PCDA regulations created by the Director-General of Health and the Minister of Health, respectively, are subsidiary legislation and not Federal law or an Act of Parliament. The court also dismissed arguments submitted by the EC and the government, represented by senior federal counsel Mohammad Al-Saifi Hashim and Fauziah Daud, that public policy considerations on public health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic were sufficient grounds to dismiss the judicial review. 'A voter's right to vote is a constitutional right and not a statutory right,' added Justice Wong. In his judicial review application, R.K. Tamileswaaran claimed that he was on the sixth day of his Covid-19 quarantine and had tested negative on a self-administered test. He stated that he was barred from entering the polling station because his MySejahtera application displayed a high-risk status, and he had not obtained permission from the district health officer to vote. The court's decision was delivered via online proceedings. Tamileswaaran was represented by lawyers New Sin Yew and Nur Izni Syazwani Ahmad. — Bernama
