Question 1

Discuss three (3) examples of discrimination based on gender that had been allowed under the
Federal Constitution.

Among the constitutionally permissible exceptions regarding the discrimination based on gender is
laid down under Article 8(2) where it forbids discrimination on account solely of religion, race, sex,
descent, or place of birth except for other additional grounds. The example of that additional
grounds is in Rukun Tetangga law which exempts women from night patrols for public safety. Next,
in the case of Beatrice A/P AT Fernandez v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & Ors where the court
expand the scope of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution to cover a collective agreement. This case is
concerned about the applicant who was a flight stewardess with the national carrier MAS for 11
years. The applicant's terms and conditions of employment were governed by a collective bargaining
agreement between the MAS Employees Union, or MASEU, and MAS clause 2, paragraph 3
specifically required an air stewardess to leave or risk firing if she became pregnant. When she
became pregnant, she refused to resign, and her employment was consequently terminated. It was
held that a collective agreement taken cognizance of by the Industrial Court was only enforceable as
an award of the Industrial Court and binding on the parties to it. Finally, gender bias against women
in citizenship laws, personal laws & the laws relating to the natives of Sabah & Sarawak. This
discrimination is concerned about Malaysian law prohibits women the right to convey citizenship to
their children in the same way that males do. Malaysian men however immediately confer
nationality on their children born overseas, while Malaysian women do not have the same right.

Question 2

Edin and Richard were residents of the state of Victory, who had fallen in love and wanted to get
married. Under Victory's laws, however, Richard, a white man, could not marry Edin, a woman of
Asian descent. The two traveled to Capital State where they could be married, but they were
arrested in Victory under a state law that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Because their offence was
a criminal conviction, after being found guilty, they were given a prison sentence of one year.
Determine the issue of equality before the law in the above case. 

Issue

Whether the conviction towards Edin and Richard is against Article 8 of the FC

Law

Generally, Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees equality before the law and the right to
equal protection of the law to all persons. Article 8(2), on the other hand, prohibits discrimination
against any citizen on the grounds specified in the provision, including "gender, religion, race,
descent, and place of birth."

However, it is important to note that these rules are subject to some limitations, including a
constitutionally permissible exception for gender bias against women in citizenship laws, personal
laws, and laws relating to Sabah and Sarawak indigenous. In this sense, personal laws refer to rules
that apply to a specific group of people, such as family law, which oversees family matters and
welfare. This permissible exception is laid down under Article 8(5)(a) where it does not invalidate or
prohibit any provision regulating personal law. As for example, Muslims in Malaysia is forbidden to
marry a non-Muslim as it opposed towards the Islamic beliefs and the respective state Syariah law.

Application

Applying the above provision towards Edin and Richard’s scenario, since the state of Victory prohibit
inter-racial marriage, this situation falls under the personal law of Victoria state. Although the above
situation can be seen as racial discrimination towards Edin and Richard, the court must abide by
article 8 (5)(a) of the Constitution. Thus, the conviction towards Edin and Richard is constitutional.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no issue of inequality before the law as the court had acted within the scope
of Article 8(5)(a) of the FC