Article 6

Prohibition of Slavery

and Forced Labour

Similarities and Differences

of

A Free Man – Forced Labour – A Slave

A Free Man Have the Liberty in relation to employment

Complete Liberty

Forced Labourer

Have no or limited liberty in relation to employment

Liberty is limited

A Slave Have no or limited liberty in relation to employment

No Liberty

• According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a slave is ‘a person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience, a human chattel.’

• A slave is not paid for services rendered and may be sold.

• A person engaged in forced labour is paid but may not be sold.

• Common to both situations is the crucial elements of the lack of personal freedom and exploitation.

International Laws on the Elimination of International Laws on the Elimination of Slavery and Forced LabourSlavery and Forced Labour

1. Slavery Convention2. Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons

and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others

1. Abolition of Forced Labour Convention2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights

Art. 6 (1) No person shall be held in slavery.

Absolute Prohibition

No Exception

It only exists illegally and in secret (outside the knowledge of the authority).

Art. 6 (2) All forms of forced labour are prohibited.

Exceptions to Prohibitions in Art. 6(2)Exceptions to Prohibitions in Art. 6(2)

There are conditions not affected by the constitutional prohibitions stated in (2) of Article 6.

The conditions are stated in Art. 6 (2), (3) and (4).

Exceptions to Prohibitions in Art. 6 (2)

They are as follows: 1. Compulsory military/national service. – Art. 6(2)2. Work undertaken by a prisoner which is

incidental to a sentence of imprisonment. – Art. 6 (3)3. The compulsory employment of a doctor

in the service of the government - Part VII of the Medical Act 1971.

- Art. 6 (4)

Barat Estates Sdn Bhd & Anor v Parawakan a/l Subramaniam & Ors 

 [200] 4 MLJ

-S 12 and 13 of the Employment Act 1955

S 12 (1) of the Act permits either party to a contract of service to terminate it by giving notice.

S 12 (2) sets out the appropriate period of notice that ought to be given depending upon the duration of the contract.

The respondents (Parawakan and 336 workers) were employed by the first appellant (Barat Estates) on two estates. The appellant owned both estates.

In September 1990, the appellant sold both estates to Prospell Enterprise Sdn Bhd (‘Prospell’).

The appellant wrote a letter to the respondents informing them of the sale of the estates to Prospell and said that the change of ownership would not affect the terms and conditions of the respondents’ service.

Prospell also wrote to the respondents Parawakan and 336 workers) offering them to continue their employment.

All the respondents accepted Prospell’s offer.

The respondents later commenced an action against the appellants.

They claimed an indemnity under s 13(1) of the Employment Act 1955 on the ground that the appellants had failed to give them notices of termination of their contracts in accordance with s 12 of the Act.

The issue before the High Court was whether the appellants were

obliged to indemnify the respondents under s 13(1) of the

Act.

The right to make a choice in the context of employment is a constitutional right.

It is in accordance with art 6 of the Federal Constitution.

‘Compelling an employee to work for a particular employer, without affording him a choice in the matter, is merely one form of forced labour.’

It is in recognition of the constitutional right that the Employment Act 1955 preserves in an employee the choice of his employer.

Further, the Act vests in the employee the right to be indemnified by his former employer for the loss of the right.