The Malaysian Bar’s International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”) 2026 takes place from 27 to 30 Oct 2026 at MITEC, Kuala Lumpur.
By Siti Nazatul Nadia bt Mohd Ridzuan, Azmi & Associates
This session examined how Malaysia’s social protection framework is adapting to gig and platform work. The speakers were Janice Anne Leo, Sarah Yong Li Hsien and Edmund Cheong Peck Huang. The overarching theme was the divide between the traditional employee, who enjoys full statutory rights, and the gig worker, who has historically fallen outside them, and how the Gig Workers Act 2025 (Act 872) (“the Act”) seeks to balance the needs of gig workers with a universal social protection policy. Three pillars framed the discussion: the legal framework, financial safety through the Social Security Organisation (“PERKESO”) and digital transparency.
From Unprotected Contractors to a Statutory Framework
Janice Anne Leo observed that the turn of the decade marked two critical points for the gig economy: the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw a surge in delivery work, and the need for workers to maintain their livelihoods. Previously, gig workers were treated as independent contractors and could not seek recourse in the Industrial Court as traditional employees could, as illustrated in Loh Guet Ching v Menteri Sumber Manusia dan lain-lain [2022] MLJU 2503.
The Act, introduced by the Ministry of Human Resources (“KESUMA”), protects gig workers, sets out their duties and responsibilities, provides for dispute resolution, establishes a tribunal, and regulates service agreements. It defines a “gig worker”, a “service agreement” and a “contracting entity”, and covers both platform-based services such as e-hailing under section 2(b)(i), and non-platform services, such as those rendered by actors, under section 2(b)(ii).
She outlined the key protections. First, service agreements must set out the worker’s entitlements under section 8(1)(c) to (e), together with the statutory minimum terms under sections 5, 6 and 8(2), though she noted that there is no minimum wage. Second, the Act addresses earnings, payments and benefits. Third, gig workers may form associations rather than trade unions under sections 9 and 10, and deactivation by a platform must go through a process of consultation and enquiry to reduce abuse by providers. Fourth, complaints against a platform provider (section 17) or an individual contracting entity (section 18) are dealt with by a conciliator at the Ministry, with escalation to the Gig Workers Tribunal for disputes in respect of claims. Finally, PERKESO contributions are to be implemented through regulations made under section 83(a).
She cautioned that these protections remain insufficient compared with Singapore’s Platform Workers Act 2024, and highlighted the i-Saraan Plus initiative from 2026, under which the Government matches the voluntary retirement savings of each e-hailing driver who chooses to contribute to the Employees Provident Fund, up to RM600 a year and RM6,000 over a lifetime.
Algorithmic Fairness and Transparency
Sarah Yong addressed algorithmic fairness and transparency in the platform economy. As with social media terms of use such as Facebook’s, gig workers cannot negotiate the terms set by platforms and have little bargaining power. Past performance, as assessed by an algorithm, determines future opportunity, and the algorithm may rely on wrong information or apply correct information under an unfair rule. She proposed three safeguards: transparency, fairness and accountability.
Under the Act, gig workers must be informed of matters under section 8(2)(a), and of automated decision-making systems under section 8(2)(b), to which section 9 applies; section 8(2)(c) further requires that workers be provided with a non-automated channel. She posed the critical question of whether workers, once informed, can actually challenge such decisions, and suggested that an independent third party could help promote fairness. She added that the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (“PDPA”), with its seven data protection principles, applies only to commercial transactions, and reminded the audience that “just because it is lawful doesn’t mean it is fair”.
She referred to the National Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Governance and Ethics, the voluntary AI Code of Ethics, and two international decisions: the Court of Bologna’s 2021 ruling against Deliveroo in Italy, and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s 2023 ruling against Uber and Ola Cabs, in which violations of articles 15 and 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) were found, and the platforms’ trade secret defence was rejected. Her reform proposals included transparency and explainability, data privacy safeguards, and substantive standards on algorithms that affect safety and fair working conditions.
Embedding Social Protection Under Act 872
Edmund Cheong illustrated the human cost of a protection gap by recalling the plane crash in Elmina on 17 Aug 2023, which also claimed the lives of those on the road below. He explained that PERKESO’s Lindung Kendiri coverage necessarily depends on contributions, eligibility and rules, and asked how policymakers at PERKESO and KESUMA should cater to workers who would otherwise be left unprotected, including seasonal workers, whose work patterns reflect not only the monsoons but also personal preferences. The Act seeks to fill gaps in PERKESO’s coverage: Part 8 makes it mandatory for platforms to contribute 1.25% to finance employment injury protection, making the responsibilities for deductions critical. Singapore’s law and international perspectives were considered to ensure continuity of the social protection scheme. He echoed the Minister of Human Resources: “The law can’t protect what the law can’t see.”
On platform providers based outside Malaysia, the discussion considered looking to the contracting party, mandating a representative office and extraterritorial service. Data integration with PERKESO through application programming interfaces and anonymised records of the number of workers engaged were raised as enforcement tools.
Key Takeaways
The Act brings gig workers into a statutory framework, but gaps remain — notably the absence of a minimum wage, the limited ability to challenge algorithmic decisions, and the practical difficulty of enforcing obligations against foreign platforms. Meaningful social protection will depend on sustained contributions, accountable algorithms and a law that can “see” the workers it is meant to protect.
*This article reports on Breakout Session 5, Stream A: Law and Society.