.jpg)
The Malaysian Bar welcomes the Gig Workers Bill 2025 (“the Bill”) as an important step towards providing a clear legal framework for the growing gig economy. Introducing a statutory definition for gig workers and mechanisms for dispute resolution, income protection, and social security contributions represents progress in addressing long-standing regulatory gaps in this sector. However, we note that industry stakeholders, including platform providers, gig workers and experts on this matter, have raised several concerns over the Bill in its existing form,1 and we believe that further refinement of the Bill, taking into account the concerns raised by the stakeholders, is necessary to achieve a more inclusive and clearly defined framework for regulating the welfare of gig workers. Given the significance of this Bill and due to the high number of gig workers in the economy, we would like to propose the following recommendations to the Ministry of Human Resources (“MOHR”) for inclusion in the Bill before it is tabled at the next Parliamentary session:
- Clear the ambiguity in the application of the Social Security Organisation (“SOCSO”) (Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial, “PERKESO”) contribution provisions: The Bill should include how SOCSO contribution requirements will apply to gig workers engaged across multiple platforms. In this regard, MOHR needs to provide clear and comprehensive provisions within the Bill on how this contribution will be made by either the platforms or the workers themselves;
- Impact on industry operations: Platform providers have raised concerns about the proposed consultative council’s functions and powers regarding potential limitations on competition and innovation, which could lead to higher service costs for consumers.2 Therefore, we suggest that further elaboration on the functions of this council is needed, and the powers of the council need to be specified to ensure the practicability of this suggested framework, while also protecting the interests of gig workers and balancing the interests of other stakeholders in the industry;
- Look into the strict prohibition on deductions from income, tips and rewards: The Bill provides strict prohibition with limited exceptions on the deductions of gig workers’ incomes, tips and rewards. At the outset, the application of this provision is seen as rigid and vague. As stated in the Bill, deductions can only be made to rectify overpayments, as specifically authorised by this Bill, other applicable legislation, or with the approval of the Director General as defined in the Bill. It fails to consider practical scenarios such as when a gig worker inadvertently overcharges a consumer or enters into commercial agreements with platform providers, such as those pertaining to loans and rentals. Thus, we propose that further clarification of the implementation of this provision be expanded in the Bill, which includes clearly defining the Director General’s discretionary powers, and that the system itself be made more practical to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic red tape;
- Ensure clarity of regulatory framework between ministries: There is a potential regulatory overlap between MOHR and the Transport Ministry in regulating e-hailing and p-hailing drivers. Currently, e-hailing and p-hailing services are regulated under a framework of laws, including the Land Public Transport Act 2010 and the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987. This overlap could create confusion and inconsistencies, especially when grievances arise. Thus, the Bill should draw clear jurisdiction lines between MOHR and the Transport Ministry to provide clarity and ensure a coherent and effective regulatory framework for the e-hailing and p-hailing services, and the broader gig economy; and
- Distinguish between gig workers and freelancers: The Bill treats gig workers who are platform-based (for example, those in the e-hailing and p-hailing sectors) and non-platform-based workers (other freelancers) in similar terms, which overlooks the nuances and differences in their work experiences. While both categories operate outside conventional employment structures, their working conditions, income patterns, and levels of control can vary substantially. Thus, we suggest that it is necessary to include provisions in the Bill that address these distinctions, ensuring that the legislation effectively caters to the diverse needs and realities of both gig workers in the e-hailing and p-hailing sectors as well as other freelancers, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
Given our recommendations to improve the Bill, we further believe that it is crucial at this juncture to conduct a comprehensive nationwide feasibility study involving all relevant stakeholders3 to ensure the Bill’s effectiveness and to minimise potential undesired knock-on effects on the 3.09 million gig workers in Malaysia.4
The Malaysian Bar supports efforts to ensure fair and balanced protections for all stakeholders in the gig economy. We are open to engaging with MOHR and industry stakeholders to refine the Bill before it is tabled at the next Parliamentary session.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysian Bar
25 March 2025
1 “Gig Workers Bill needs to be refined, say platforms”, Free Malaysia Today, 27 February 2025.
2 “Gig industry players raise concerns over draft Gig Workers’ Bill”, The Star, 27 February 2025.
3 “Gig economy platforms welcome refinements to Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill”, Astro Awani, 4 March 2025.
4 “Gig economy expands in 2024 amid push for increased worker protection”, The Edge Malaysia, 29 December 2024.