
Malaysia’s Dewan Rakyat (Home of Associates) has passed the Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill 2021, despite unaddressed problems of important shortcomings in the Invoice.
The Bill was initially tabled for its initially reading through in December 2021 (Read our prior publish: “Malaysia’s Anti-Sexual Harassment Monthly bill tabled in Parliament”). It was then withdrawn from a 2nd reading earlier in 2022, with the govt indicating that it would be substantially reviewed pursuing sturdy feedback received from numerous get-togethers. Regrettably, the Invoice which was handed this week only had very slight amendments from the first draft.
Thanks to the limited revisions built from the 1st draft, our summary of the Monthly bill printed in December 2021 is nonetheless mostly exact: https://themalaysianlawyer.com/2021/12/15/anti-sexual-harassment-monthly bill/
These are the product changes in the current model of the Invoice:
- A new Clause 7(3) is provided, introducing a limitation period for sexual harassment problems: “A criticism referred to the Tribunal underneath this Act is subject matter to the Limitation Act 1953.”
- Even though the first version delivered that functions at the hearing of a sexual harassment criticism are not able to be represented by an advocate and solicitor, this has been revised [at Clause 13(2)] to deliver that lawful illustration will be authorized if “in the viewpoint of the Tribunal, the make a difference in issue includes complicated issues of law”. The revisions also supply that if a single occasion is permitted to represented by an advocate and solicitor, then the other party will also be so entitled.
With these really confined modifications, it seems that the considerations raised by a lot of rights organisations who experienced hoped for “a meticulous critique of the Bill” have been left unheard. Time will notify no matter if the new extended-awaited law will be comprehensive adequate to guard the legal rights and wellbeing of sexual harassment victims.
More Stories
California Proposition Regarding App-Based Drivers is Largely Here to Stay (For Now)
Court of Appeal: Privette Doctrine Does Not Apply to Landlord-Tenant Relationships | California Construction Law Blog
USDA Proposes New “Made in the USA” Standard