A Comparative Analysis of the Sufficiency of Employment Law Frameworks in Protecting Women Employees’ Equal Pay Rights in Malaysia and the United Kingdom

This paper assesses how adequately employment legal frameworks in Malaysia safeguard the equal pay rights of female employees in the country by comparing Malaysia to a country such as the United Kingdom. It examines the Employment Act 1955 (as amended) alongside the equality guarantees under the Malaysian Federal Constitution to determine whether these legal frameworks provide adequate protection against wage discrimination and unequal remuneration. Comparatively, the Equality Act 2010 of the United Kingdom is assessed as a more advanced framework governing discrimination and offering an opportunity to regulate equality in the workplace. The study employs the method of socio-legal research in a qualitative framework with the help of doctrinal analysis. The semi-structured interviews conducted on purposely chosen respondents who are representatives of NGOs, legal practice, academia, and industrial relations administration were used to gather primary data. Secondary sources consist of legislation, scholarly sources, policy files and reports. The paper also finds that the Malaysian framework is still weak because of definitional loopholes and enforcement vices, as well as cultural structural constraints. In contrast, the UK framework is clear and enforceable. The results advocate the reform strategies in Malaysia, such as better articulation of the rights to equal pay, and more effective enforcement mechanisms in the legislative framework.

In contrast, the UK framework is clear and enforceable

1. Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2024). Salaries & wages survey report 2023. https://storage.dosm.gov.my/labour/salaries_wages_2023.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Employment Act 1955 (Malaysia) (Act 265), as amended by the Employment (Amendment) Act 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Equality Act 2010 (UK), c. 15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. International Labour Organization (ILO). (1951). C100 – Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100). https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=normlexpub:12100:0::no::p12100_ilo_code:c100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Campbell, C. M., & Wiles, P. (1976). The study of law in society in Britain. Law & Society Review, 10(4), 547–578. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053297 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chui, W. H. (2019). Introduction and overview. In W. H. Chui & M. McConville (Eds.), Research methods for law (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chynoweth, P. (2008). Legal research. In A. Knight & L. Ruddock (Eds.), Advanced research methods in the built environment (pp. 28–38). Wiley-Blackwell. https://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/16542/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. NYU Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed-method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.