Putting the two together, it might have been argued that there was no discrimination against the plaintiff in relation to other women who are also pregnant, as all pregnant women would not have been hired.
This may well be the first time a Malaysian court applied international law to interpret a provision in the Constitution in such a direct manner, as opposed to a subordinate legislation. The Judge also referred to several instances where Malaysia had expressed its commitment to ensuring that the principles enunciated under CEDAW were given full effect under Malaysian law.
There are indeed, and rightly so, Court decisions to the effect that broadly, Art. The Court used Art. There is no good reason why private employers should not be held to account for discriminatory practices against women which undermine the right to equal employment opportunities and equal treatment of women in the work place.
MAS then terminated her services. It defines what constitutes discrimination against women, and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. The Defendants also argued that employing a pregnant woman to fill the GSTT post would defeat the purpose of the post which was to solve the problem of a shortage of teachers in Malaysia.
A material term in the Training Agreement was Clause 5. In this way, the Court has put the rule of law, national and international, and supremacy of the Constitution on ever firmer footing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2. The applicant became pregnant but refused to resign.
This article explains the salient points of this judgment, which has far-reaching effects on women in Malaysia.
The official then took back the letter offering the Plaintiff work. At no point before or during the interview was she asked whether she was pregnant. Just to name a few: The High Court clarified the meaning of the terms "equality" and "gender discrimination" and held that the CEDAW has the force of law and is binding on its member states, including Malaysia.
Therefore, their actions fell within the ambit of Article 8 2 of the Federal Constitution. In as much as there is unfinished business at the national level, there is also unfinished business at the international level.
Posted on 20 January A World Bank study further shows that attaining a higher female participation rate could provide Malaysia with a growth dividend of about 0. Article 8 2 of the Federal Constitution, as amended, provides that there shall be no discrimination on the ground only of gender in the appointment of any office or employment under a public authority.
The Court noted that the concept was only applicable to Article 8 1 and not to Article 8 2 of the Federal Constitution.Noorfadilla bt Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun & Ors  1 MLJ (Zaleha Yusof J) A Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by States parties to the Convention: 16 (m).
to which Malaysia is a party. Facilitate the creation of sustainable jobs and livelihood opportunities to improve. In the highly commended landmark decision in Noorfadilla binti Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun and Ors  1 CLJthe High Court held that the refusal to employ a woman on the grounds of pregnancy alone is a form of gender discrimination and unconstitutional under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.
An appeal by the. Trishelea Sandosam explains Malaysia's landmark gender discrimination case.
INTRODUCTION In Julythe High Court delivered a landmark decision in Noorfadilla binti Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun and Ors  1 CLJ when it held that refusal to employ a woman on the grounds of pregnancy alone is a form of.
Noorfadilla case: Triumph and Tribulations. 20 January | Women Rule (Shah Alam) in the case of Noorfadilla bt Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun & Ors  1 MLJHC gave a boost to women’s rights in Malaysia, and injected a much needed breath of fresh air, more broadly.
Noorfadilla Binti Ahmad Saikin vs. Chayed Bin Basirun and Others 1. Introduction: The Noorfadilla Case In Julythe High Court delivered a landmark decision in Noorfadilla binti Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun and Ors  1 CLJthat the refusal to employ a woman on the ground of pregnancy alone is a form of gender.
The court noted that Article 8(1) only applies for an individual under the law and the collective agreement was governed by the private law thus Article 8 could not be applied for this case.
Another case is Noorfadilla Binti Ahmad Saikin v Chayed Bin Basirun &.Download