Social legislation are “a specific set of laws passed by the legislature for the purpose of regulating the relationship between a weaker class of persons and a stronger class of persons.”[1]
The rationale behind social legislation was stated by the Federal Court in PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and other appeals [2021] 2 MLJ 60 (FC):
“Given that one side always has the upper hand against the other due to the inequality of bargaining power, the state is compelled to intervene to balance the scales of justice by providing certain statutory safeguards for that weaker class.”[2]
When it comes to interpreting social legislation, the courts are to “[construe] its provisions to give [its] provisions a construction which would assist to achieve the object of the Act.”[3]
The following is a non-exhaustive list of legislation (arranged alphabetically) which have been expressly recognised by the courts as social legislation.
1. Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983
In the Supreme Court case of Ang Gin Lee v Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 MLJ 498, Hashim Yeop A Sani CJ (Malaya) held:
“[The Drug Dependants (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983] is a social legislation of sort.”[4]
2. Employees Provident Fund Ordinance 1951
The Federal Court in Employees Provident Fund Board v Dr Chelliah Bros [1969] 1 MLJ 161 enunciated the following:
“The Employees Provident Fund is essentially a social legislation enacted to benefit employees.”[5]
The Employees Provident Fund (“EPF”) Ordinance 1951 later became the EPF Act 1951, and subsequently was repealed and replaced by the EPF Act 1991.[6]
3. Employees Provident Fund Act 1991
In Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Ong Lian Chee (suing as administrator of the estate of Goh Tin Poh, deceased) [2010] 4 MLJ 762, Low Hop Bing JCA stated:
“… the EPF Act 1991 which is a piece of social, legislation wherein the underlying purpose or object is no doubt the promotion of the welfare of the members, in the context of beneficient social legislation, the provisions therein must receive a broad, liberal and functional or purposive interpretation — see Golden Hope Plantations (Peninsular) Sdn Bhd (Ladang Sungei Senarut) v Sarawathy Kathan [2009] 1 MLJ 611; [2009] 3 CLJ 335 (CA).”[7]
See also Sivamurthy s/o Muniandy & Ors v Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja [2013] 5 MLJ 533 (CA), at para 14.
4. Employees’ Social Security Act 1969
The Federal Court in Rethana v Government of Malaysia [1984] 2 MLJ 52 recognised that the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 is a social legislation:
“In the present case the Employees’ Social Security Act, 1969 is being challenged not on the basis that Parliament has no power to enact it, but on the ground that some of its provisions are inconsistent with certain provisions of the Constitution. Being a social legislation involving matters pertaining to labour and social security …”[8]
See also Sri Mahanum bt Yup (suing as widow to Mohd Yusof bin Sahak, deceased) v Representative of the estate for Raden Benni bin RS Tanuwidjaja, deceased & Anor [2019] 4 MLJ 362 (CA), at para 8; Golden Hope Plantations (Peninsular) Sdn Bhd (Ladang Sungei Senarut) v Saraswathy a/p Kathan [2009] 1 MLJ 611 (CA), at para 17.
5. Employment Act 1955
Low Hop Bing JCA in Golden Hope Plantations (Peninsular) Sdn Bhd (Ladang Sungei Senarut) v Saraswathy a/p Kathan [2009] 1 MLJ 611 enunciated the following:
“The question for determination in the instant appeal calls for an examination and interpretation of the Employment Act 1955 and the SOCSO Act. Both these Acts come within the category of social legislation.”[9] (Emphasis mine)
6. Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and its subsidiary legislation
In Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor and other appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281, the Federal Court made it clear that:
“The [Housing Development (Control and Licensing)] Act being a social legislation designed to protect the house buyers, the interests of the purchasers shall be the paramount consideration against the developer.”[10]
Subsequently, the Federal Court in PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and other appeals [2021] 2 MLJ 60 remarked:
“That the HDA 1966 and its subsidiary legislation are social legislation is settled beyond dispute …”[11]
7. Industrial Relations Act 1967
In Maritime Intelligence Sdn Bhd v Tan Ah Gek [2021] MLJU 2189, Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ held:
“… the [Industrial Relations] Act and section 20 comprise social legislation promulgated by Parliament to ensure that a workman’s right to earn a livelihood is not truncated arbitrarily at the will of an employer.”[12]
See also Kesatuan Kebangsaan Wartawan Malaysia & Anor v Syarikat Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd & Anor [2001] 3 MLJ 705, at p. 710; Hoh Kiang Ngan v Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [1995] 3 MLJ 369, at p. 387; Dr A Dutt v Assunta Hospital [1981] 1 MLJ 304, at p. 312.
8. Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976
Siti Norma Yaakob JCA (later CJ Malaya) in Diana Clarice Chan Ching Hwa v Tiong Chiong Hoo [2002] 2 MLJ 97 stated:
“… we acknowledge the [Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976] to be a piece of social legislation for which a liberal interpretation is more apt than a strict one.”[13]
9. Moneylenders Act 1951
In Powernet Industries Sdn Bhd v Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 412, the Court of Appeal was of the view that:
“Based on the principles enunciated in the cases mentioned above, we are of the view that the [Moneylenders Act 1951] is a manifestation of a social legislation and is designed to regulate the business of moneylending and to protect borrowers.”[14]
10. National Wages Council Consultative Act 2011 and the Minimum Wages Orders
The Federal Court in Crystal Crown Hotel & Resort Sdn Bhd (Crystal Crown Hotel Petaling Jaya) v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia [2021] 3 MLJ 466 posited the following:
“The object and purport of the NWCCA 2011 and MWO 2012 is to enhance and alleviate the plight of lab our, more particularly the working poor. That is not in dispute. Similarly, the IRA was enacted to protect the livelihood of lab our i.e. workmen, while taking into account the interests of capital or employers, in the interests of the economy of the country. Both pieces of legislation comprise social legislation enacted to meet the needs of particular sections of society, more particularly the vulnerable and marginalised sections.”[15]
11. Road Transport Act 1987
In Hameed Jagubar bin Syed Ahmad v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd [2017] 6 MLJ 618, Harmindar Singh JCA (now FCJ) held that:
“… it is pertinent that Part IV of the RTA, and in particular s 96, was specifically enacted to protect and provide compensation to third party victims of road accidents. It is therefore most unfortunate that s 96(3) of the RTA, and the way it has been interpreted in a number of cases, has taken away this protection thus defeating the whole purpose of the statute as a piece of social legislation.” (Emphasis mine)
See also Ahmad Nadzrin bin Abd Halim & Anor v Allianz General Insurance Co (M) Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 223 (CA), at para 45; Sri Mahanum bt Yup (suing as widow to Mohd Yusof bin Sahak, deceased) v Representative of the estate for Raden Benni bin RS Tanuwidjaja, deceased & Anor [2019] 4 MLJ 362 (CA), at para 8; Aqmal bin Dakhirrudin v Azhar bin Ahmad & Anor [2019] MLJU 1554 (CA), at para 40.
12. Strata Management Act 2013
Tengku Maimun CJ in Innab Salil & Ors v Verve Suites Mont’ Kiara Management Corp [2020] 12 MLJ 16 propounded the following:
“The SMA 2013 is without doubt, a social legislation. It was passed to facilitate the affairs of strata living for the good of the community or owners of the strata title.”[16]
13. Trade Union Act 1959
In Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Bukan Eksekutif Maybank Bhd v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Bank & Anor [2018] 2 MLJ 590, the Federal Court held:
“On the interpretation to be accorded to the said provision, the Court of Appeal had stated that, the TUA 1959 is a piece of social legislation to promote, preserve and protect the employees and employee’s right as well as the employer’s right to create industrial harmony. The object of trade unions whether in-house or national, is to regulate the relationship between employers and employees and in particular the rights of its members …
… We are mindful and very certain that we are not inventing fancied ambiguities in the provisions of s 12 of the TUA 1959. Our approach in interpreting the said provision is merely to keep abreast with the development of time and the liberal approach of interpretation towards social legislations.”[17]
See also National Union of Bank Employees v Director General of Trade Unions & Anor [2015] 1 MLJ 881 (CA), at para 10(a).
[1] PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and other appeals [2021] 2 MLJ 60 (FC), at para 31
[2] Ibid.
[3] Maritime Intelligence Sdn Bhd v Tan Ah Gek [2021] MLJU 2189 (FC), at para 40
[4] Ang Gin Lee v Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 MLJ 498 (SC), at p. 501
[5] Employees Provident Fund Board v Dr Chelliah Bros [1969] 1 MLJ 161 (FC), at p. 166
[6] See Section 75 of the EPF Act 1991
[7] Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v Ong Lian Chee (suing as administrator of the estate of Goh Tin Poh, deceased) [2010] 4 MLJ 762 (CA), at para 13
[8] Rethana v Government of Malaysia [1984] 2 MLJ 52 (FC), at p. 54
[9] Golden Hope Plantations (Peninsular) Sdn Bhd (Ladang Sungei Senarut) v Saraswathy a/p Kathan [2009] 1 MLJ 611 (CA), at para 17
[10] Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor and other appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281 (FC), at para 40
[11] PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and other appeals [2021] 2 MLJ 60 (FC), at para 27
[12] Maritime Intelligence Sdn Bhd v Tan Ah Gek [2021] MLJU 2189 (FC), at para 40
[13] Diana Clarice Chan Ching Hwa v Tiong Chiong Hoo [2002] 2 MLJ 97 (CA), at p. 103
[14] Powernet Industries Sdn Bhd v Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd [2020] 12 MLJ 412 (CA), at para 84
[15] Crystal Crown Hotel & Resort Sdn Bhd (Crystal Crown Hotel Petaling Jaya) v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Hotel, Bar & Restoran Semenanjung Malaysia [2021] 3 MLJ 466 (FC), at para 45
[16] Innab Salil & Ors v Verve Suites Mont’ Kiara Management Corp [2020] 12 MLJ 16 (FC), at para 26
[17] Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Bukan Eksekutif Maybank Bhd v Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-Pekerja Bank & Anor [2018] 2 MLJ 590 (FC), at paras 57 and 80
Recent Comments