There public authority. All these such problems and

There are two problems concerning Article 8 of Federal Constitution. The first problem is the coverage of law is not wide enough. In Article 8(1) of Federal Constitution stated that all persons are equal before law. Therefore, it can be said that Article 8 of Federal Constitution is the foundation of constitutional protection for the Malaysian citizens’ rights of equality and non-discrimination. Besides, in the Article 8(2) of Federal Constitution stated that except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment. Here, in Article 8(2) of Federal Constitution expressly stated that it shall be no discrimination against citizens in religion, race, descent, gender, appointment to any office and employment under a public authority. These rights are being supported by Article 8(1) of Federal Constitution as in that said Article granted that everyone are equal before law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. However, the coverage of discrimination in the aspect of employment stated in Article 8(2) of Federal Constitution is not wide enough as it is only cover the discrimination of employment under a public authority. It means that it does not cover the discrimination of employment under a private sector. Thus, there are many cases happened at private sector that the citizen cannot uphold their rights as such right does not including their sector. There are two cases that can be taken as the examples which the case of Beatrice Fernandez v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & Ors and AirAsia Bhd v Rafizah Shima bt Mohamed Aris shows that if there is a matter of private sectors employees concerned, Article 8(1) and (2) of Federal Constitution could not protect their rights and uphold the equality in the employments matter. It seems that such constitutional protections and rights such as equality are available only for public sector employees since they are fall within the scope of public authority. All these such problems and lacunae in law regards the discrimination of employments in private sector shows that the application of Article 8 of Federal Constitution within the scope of employment at private sector is still below of the par that which it supposedly to be. This both cases and matters will be explained in further with detail in the Chapter 2 of this research proposal. Besides, the second problem is there is an existence of chequerboard laws in the Article 8 of Federal Constitution. According to Dworkin, chequerboard laws means the law does not apply equally or the statutes treat people differently in a way that is unjust. This can be seen in the case of Norfadilla binti Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun & Ors where in that case a claim of gender discrimination at the workplace concerned is succeed. However, if we compared with the case of Beatrice and Rafizah Shima, the court does not allow their claim as they are bound with the collective agreement. Therefore, their constitutional rights as stated in Article 8 (1) and (2) of Federal Constitution cannot be upholding. Here, we can see that the law apply does not apply equally although all the cases are related with the discrimination at the workplace. This shows that the application of the Article 8 (1) and (2) of Federal Constitution is still in dreadful level especially within the scope of the employment at private sector.

Comments are closed.