According to Edmund Bon, a human rights lawyer said two international laws which Putrajaya is bound by leave Malaysian employees at foreign embassies vulnerable to unfair dismissal:
- the Diplomatic Privileges (Vienna Convention) Act 1966; and
- the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992
They provide total immunity to embassies in all respects of their presence in Malaysia. They not only allow for the dismissal of Malaysian employees, referred to as "locally engaged staff" (LES) but makes it difficult for them to seek legal recourse if they have been unfairly terminated.
According to Bon:
- No legal recourse is available if an embassy is granted general immunity.
- The two laws give rise to three possible interpretations, which means the outcome of any case brought against an embassy would hinge on which interpretation the presiding judge relies on. So, say if a local employee were to challenge a dismissal in a Malaysian court, does the court follow the common law, which is premised on precedent cases or statute law?
In a recent case in which a Malaysian security guard sued the US embassy for unlawful termination was a progressive case based on common law but should also be applied across the board to all statute laws. Read further here. Thank you.
