PENGAJIAN LUAR KAMPUS

PUSAT PENDIDIKAN PROFESIONAL DAN LANJUTAN (PACE)

UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA

KOD DAN NAMA KURSUS

SCCA 2083 : UNDANG-UNDANG KOMUNIKASI

SEMESTER

APRIL SESI 2020/2021 (JA201)

TUGASAN INDIVIDU (2)

Analisis terhadap kes yang berkaitan dengan isu Undang-undang Komunikasi

DISEDIAKAN UNTUK

Dr. MARZURA IBRAHIM

DISEDIAKAN OLEH

THARSHINI KASIVISVANATHAN
268684

1
Table Of Contents

No. Contents Pages

1. Description of the case 3-4

2. Your Point of View in regarding court punishment 4-5

3. Your Suggestion or Ideas to overcome such a 6-7

discrimination & appropriate of punishments

4. Conclusion 7

2
 LAW CASE :

RAVINDAR S LATCHMANNEN v. WINITEX SDN BHD

INDUSTRIAL COURT, JOHOR
SUMATHI MURUGIAH
AWARD NO. 1817 OF 2019 [CASE NO: 16/4-1210/15]
24 JUNE 2019

1. Description of the case

Ravindar S. Latchamannen had been employed by the company as the Head of

Department. Approximately 32 years into his service with it, he was issued a show cause
letter for, inter alia, insulting the Muslim race and the Sultan of Selangor. Despite
responding to the show cause letter, a Domestic Inquiry was convened against him and at
the end of it, he was dismissed from service. The claimant now contends that his
dismissal had been carried out without just cause and excuse. There were two main issues
that arose for determination. The first was whether there had been a dismissal and in the
event the first issue was answered in the affirmative, whether it had been carried out with
just cause and excuse. Based on all the evidence adduced, regardless of whether the
derogatory statements had been made or not, the claimant had presented a subject matter
which had been race related, in the presence of his colleagues who had been of the same
race as that the statements had been directed against. He had, by his actions, obviously
not exercised any consideration to the sensitivity of the subject matter, as it had been an
insulting remark, no matter who had uttered it. Thus, he had indeed orchestrated the
events which could have caused disharmony in the workplace. In fact, he had agreed that
his actions had caused such an effect. Thus, by his actions, he had been liable for
misconduct.

Ravindar, had served the company loyally and faithfully for 32 years and for these
reasons, he should have been more aware of his surroundings and responsibilities as the
Head of Department. Even if he had believed that he had merely been stating what had
been written

3
 or said by another, he should have known that an insulting remark directed at a particular
race, would certainly offend people of that race. By his insensitive act, he had caused
industrial disharmony in the company. His misconduct had marred the trust and
confidence the company had reposed in him as the Head of Department and the
punishment of dismissal meted out on him, had been appropriate in all the circumstances
of the case. It has been reported that Ravindar as Head of Department have committed
serious misconduct as on Saturday 20th September 2014 at about 10.00 am in the
Canteen uttered seditious words to wit ‘Sultan Selangor sembahyang lima waktu tetapi
pergi luar negeri main puki Mat Saleh bodoh’, ‘Gundik Mat Salleh’ against the State of
Selangor’s Constitutional Monarch in the presence of a group of Malay employees who
were having breakfast that has angered them causing racial tension and disharmony and
hence have committed serious misconduct. Based on the investigation carried out by the
company the company found out that on 20 September 2014 at about 10.00 am, the
claimant had uttered the following statements during break time in the presence of other
workers :

“Melayu semua bodoh”

“Sultan Selangor sembahyang lima waktu tetapi pergi luar negeri
main puki mat salleh bodoh”
“Gundik Mat Salleh”
“Mansuhkan Akta Hasutan”

Therefore, since such misconduct had marred the trust and confidence the company had
in the claimant being a Head of Department, the court finds that the punishment meted to
the claimant is appropriate in the circumstances of the case which is dismissal.

2. Your Point of View in regarding this Case & Punishment

I truly agree with the decision made by the company pursuant to s. 30(5) of the Industrial
Relations Act 1967, it is the finding of the court that the company has established, on a
balance of probabilities, the appropriateness of the company’s action against the

4
claimant. In the circumstances of this case, it is the considered view of the court that it is
unreasonable to expect the company to have continued the claimant’s employment.
Ravindar’s actions is likely to cause feelings of hostility on religious grounds among
adherent of different races. Such allegations only clearly shows prejudicial attitudes and
thoughts towards other races in Malaysia, ignorance and lack of confidence about their
own integrity as well as an emotional reaction. Ravindar should have been more aware of
his surrounding and his responsibilities as a Head of Department. Even if he believed that
he was merely stating what was written or said by another, he should have known that an
insulting remark directed to a particular race would certainly offend people of that race.
By his insensitive act, he caused industrial disharmony in the company. Such a
obligations must expect in a multicultural society such as in this country, that the
workplace is also multicultural. In such multicultural work environment, industrial
harmony, one of if not the main object (s)
of industrial relations, is achieved not by one acting on the norms acceptable to himself,
but he must be sensitive to what is acceptable by other. Apart from that, I would say that
Ravindar’s organization had made a right decision by dismissing him with an immediate
effect which is one of the professional act made by the company. Sustaining him from the
current work may lead a lot of misconducts and misbehaves between Ravindar and the
co-workers as well, since the issue is not non other but about racism. Discrimination in
the workplace can harm employees health and an organization’s productivity.

On the flipside, an organization that appears to tolerate racist behaviour creates a lack of
psychological safety for its employees. This leads to disengagement, lower productivity
and a higher staff turnover. It is a problem that persist and, across the globe, stories of
discrimination and bullying continue to be reported. Businesses have a moral obligations
to address the issues. But when the impacts on organizations that don’t act are taken into
account, it becomes clear that adopting an anti-racist approach as a business imperative
can no longer be ignored. The good news is that the past efforts may have fallen short, a
renewed focus and recent innovations in this area including in technology may give
reasons for optimism that meaningful change can be enacted. This will require businesses
to be actively anti-racist and commit to putting in the effort over the long term. It’s

5
 efforts that’s unlikely to be wasted. Making progress towards a more diverse, inclusive
and equitable workplace ultimately benefits everyone regardless of race.

3. Your Suggestions or Ideas to overcome such an issues

Racism is bad for business on all fronts. Not only does it place a company in legal
jeopardy, but it also fosters a divisive work culture that undermines morale, teamwork
and productivity. It makes it harder to recruit, engage and retain diverse talent, and it
tarnishes an organization's reputation and brand. It’s crucial that you ensure all staff are
knowledgeable and skilled in recognizing and tackling racism.

Being an inclusive leader or manager should not be discretionary or something that only
some people demonstrate day in and day out. Whatever their seniority, all managers must
understand and practice equality, diversity, and inclusion, and be able to provide
evidence of what they say and do to tackle racism. Doing so will ensure the company is
welcoming, as well as legally compliant. All good leadership and management require a
sophisticated analysis of how a person’s ethnicity leads to structural advantage or
disadvantage. This allows decision making to be properly informed by the facts and
metrics, as opposed to unfounded impressions that might compound the issues.

Companies need to approach racism at work with passion, commitment, and skill to make
positive change. Part of this means holding themselves accountable, from the top, via
targets that are regularly and transparently reported on. This involves that treating
complaints with respect, properly investigating their claims in fair and unbiased manners.
As staff we should know what to watch out when tackling some sensitive issues around
the workplace. Combatting racial discrimination in the workplace is not a simple process.
It’s an uncomfortable subject with significant implications, but that should never get in
the way of action. We need to think through how you personally can address systemic
races discrimination in measurable ways. Nevertheless, appropriate actions to be taken to
those who discriminating races issues around the working places. They should aware that

6
 there is always a room for privacy. An organization or Labor Act should not hesitates to
take proper actions to those against the basic rules. Other than dismissal, an organization
should also claim for the intention damage which occurred towards to their company by
the offender. Besides that my suggestion or idea for overcoming the offense and the
appropriateness of the sentence in the case under analysis. Although I agree with the
decision of the organization and the court, but I would suggest that the court need to be
more strict in handling the punishments to the individuals who ridicule on religious and
racial issues as it’s an undeniable sensitive issues.

For me, if the matter of racism and religion is punished by simply paying a fine or
dismissal from the company, it is possible that other parties who are anti-cultural and
anti-religious will also take this granted and harass sensitive matters in the future. The
court will have to carry out a prison sentence of minimum 5 months and 22 days and with
a fine of MYR 15,000 without reduction of any sentence after being convicted.

4. Conclusion
As a conclusion, addressing equality, diversity, and inclusion, and racism in particular,
can be complex, nuanced, and challenging, and must be correctly handled. It is
impossible to be an excellent leader without proactively addressing racism. It takes
commitment, knowledge and skills to take specific practical actions, day in, day out. The
benefits of doing so for individuals, groups, companies and society are immense. The
court should be tightened the punishments commensurate with what is contained in the
court law without any compromises toward Ravindran S. Letchamannan whom lever a
sensitive racism content around the working places.

5. References

https://library.uum.edu.my/uum-resources/#

https://www-cljlaw-com.eserv.uum.edu.my/Members/ResultsCases.aspx?SearchID=6psb

7
https://www-cljlaw-com.eserv.uum.edu.my/Members/DisplayCase.aspx?
CaseId=3120891010&SearchId=6psb

Perpustakaan UUM.