I REFER to theSun report dated Sept 15, “MPs divided over night business concept”, which discussed proposals to expand Malaysia’s night-time economy by looking to models in Amsterdam and Sydney. Such ideas can boost tourism and enliven cities after office hours.
While the objective of stimulating the national economy is commendable, we must ensure that in the rush to promote the “night economy”, our existing small traders and hawkers – who have long been the backbone of the people’s economy – are not marginalised.
Small traders generate income that not only sustains their families but also circulates back into the community. Every ringgit earned is spent on household needs, suppliers and local services. This cycle strengthens grassroots economic growth.
Yet, recent media reports and social media posts have shown how local authorities in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and other states have confiscated basic belongings of hawkers during enforcement operations. Umbrellas, small tents, folding tables, chairs, gas cylinders, food items and even clothing are seized. These actions strike directly at the hawkers’ ability to survive.
Most of these confiscations occur because traders lack licences or operate in restricted areas. But confiscating goods – often without return – amounts to double punishment: loss of capital, loss of goods and loss of daily income. Such measures undermine their basic right to livelihood.
India offers a useful example. Its Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act 2014 formally recognises street vendors, issues licences, designates vending zones, and most importantly, protects livelihoods from arbitrary eviction. By ensuring no vendor is evicted without due process, the Act aligns with Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade) and Article 21 (right to livelihood) of the Indian Constitution.
Malaysia has no equivalent nationwide protection law. Our Local Government Act 1976 allows local councils to make by-laws but these usually focus on control and enforcement rather than livelihood protection. This leaves hawkers vulnerable to arbitrary and inconsistent actions.
It is important to note that Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty, save in accordance with law. This has been interpreted to encompass the right to live with dignity, which necessarily includes the right to sustain a livelihood.
Malaysia should move towards a progressive legal framework that not only regulates but also safeguards the livelihood rights of hawkers and small traders.
Finally, MPs should first understand the real grievances and the needs of small traders in this country before the “night economy” issue is brought to Parliament or debated as a matter of national policy.
K. Kunasekaran
Ipoh