THE Association for Community and Dialogue is puzzled by the behaviour of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress in rejecting amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 ( Act 177). Is this some more myopic thinking similar to the blunder of not endorsing the Geneva convention on violence and harassment at the workplace? After drawing flak from members of civil society it came to its senses but by then it was too late for regret.

At least the labour law reform commission has came up with an objective assessment of the amendments to Act 177, rather than categorically opposing them. Due this shortsightedness among MTUC leaders and their counterparts in Malaysian Employers Federation, Malaysia is still far behind in enhancing its labour standards. Countries like Vietnam have moved ahead in various aspects of labour conventions where common good binds various interests. The MTUC should in fact come out with the real reason it opposes the amendments to Act 177. Is it due to a fear of losing monopoly over trade union matters?  

The Human Resources Ministry has tabled an amendment bill to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 for the first and second reading in the Dewan Rakyat. The ministry stated “the amendments are part of the holistic review and in conformity to international standards in bringing transformation to the industrial relations landscape in the country.” The amendments, it said, were discussed at length with various stakeholders, and will overhaul industrial relations practice in Malaysia, particularly in relation to unfair dismissal claims and trade unions. However, MTUC president Abdul Halim Mansor and MTUC secretary-general J. Solomon have stated that MTUC was never consulted.

While MTUC HQ appears to object to the amendments, I am puzzled that MTUC Sarawak has issued a statement hailing and welcoming the amendments. MTUC Sarawak secretary Andrew Lo said the amendments were a game changer for industrial relations as they would help in increasing trade unions which could play an effective role in a robust industrial relations system. 

Lo even went on to say that the Human Resources Ministry had held comprehensive and robust consultations with not just the principle stakeholders like MTUC and MEF, but also with other workers and employers groups, NGOs, and the International Labour Organisation. So who is right and who is wrong? 

Though I was not privy to the abovementioned consultations and engagement sessions, I believe the ministry should respond quickly to clear the air over the contradicting statements from MTUC HQ and MTUC Sarawak.  It is also baffling that the MTUC president and secretary-general are objecting to the amendments aside from the claim that they were not consulted. Will the amended clauses have negative consequences for the workers in the country? The fact is, elitism has crept into MTUC where its leaders are unable to conceive the new reality of the digital world, where horizontal interaction will emerge, and competition for service will be the order of day with little need for elites to determine the nature of unionism and future of work.

I believe this is the first time the Human Resources Ministry has been able to conduct a revamp of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, to be in line with the promise by Pakatan Harapan to enhance and improve workers’ protection. There are certain shortcomings highlighted by the labour law reform commission which the ministry should look into. While holistic reform is vital, it should not in any way stop workers from benefiting from the initial fruits.

So, to MTUC: Let’s appreciate and celebrate this success and move on.

*Ronald Benjamin is Association for Community and Dialogue secretary.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.