The Social Work Profession Act 2026 is now going through the final stages of being gazetted.
It marks a long-awaited recognition of social work as a profession in Malaysia.
The act aims to regulate social workers, raise standards, protect vulnerable communities and formalise professional practice. All of this is welcome.
Yet the act raises a deeper question. What model of regulation best serves the public, and how should power be balanced between the state and the profession itself?
A shift in control
Professions have historically been defined by their capacity for self-regulation. Those providing specialised services are expected to set standards of competence, uphold ethical conduct, discipline misconduct and safeguard the public.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Statutory recognition usually strengthens this by giving legal force to professional norms, while still preserving the profession’s own voice.
In Malaysia, to be recognised as a profession, there must be a self-regulating body established by written law.
The Social Work Profession Act 2026 takes a markedly different approach.
Instead of recognising or empowering an existing body, such as the Malaysian Association of Social Workers, the act sets up new machinery. This is the Malaysian Social Work Profession Council (Part II of the act).
The council sits firmly within government. It is chaired by the ministry’s secretary general, with the director general of social welfare as deputy chair.
Most members are appointed by the minister, who can also remove them without giving any reason (section 10(1)). The council must answer to the minister, who can issue it directions (section 12).
This is not simply oversight. It is direct administrative control over the body that sets standards, ethics, competency and discipline for the whole profession.
Rules with real gaps
The act’s definition of social work services is broad. It covers services provided to ensure social functioning and wellbeing, through engagement, assessment, planning, implementation, re-evaluation and termination (section 2).
This clearly covers professional social work. But it also covers activities routinely carried out in family, voluntary, charitable, community, educational and advocacy settings.
A soup-kitchen volunteer who assesses a homeless person’s needs could be caught by this. So could an NGO worker who steps in to help a survivor of domestic violence.
The minister has said the act does not apply to volunteers or caregivers. But verbal assurances in Parliament carry no legal weight. The wording of the act has not changed, and the penalties are severe.
Unregistered practice can bring a fine of up to RM20,000 or two years in jail. Employing an unregistered practitioner can bring a fine of up to RM50,000 or three years in jail.
Given the criminal penalties involved, the law needs to be clear. If volunteers, family and community caregivers are not meant to be covered, the law should say so plainly.
Malaysia’s social care sector is large, varied and vibrant. The government says there are more than 54,500 active welfare NGOs.
These NGOs, charities, shelters and community groups rely on a mix of professional staff, employees, volunteers and members.
But section 32 of the act restricts the employment of people who are not registered practitioners, and creates liability for societies and their office-bearers.
The real issue is not whether NGOs should meet professional standards when they hire qualified social workers. It is whether the act properly separates professional practice, which needs registration, from voluntary or community-based help, which should not.
As it stands, section 32 goes too far and needs amending.
There is also a double standard for public officers. Section 19(8) of the act exempts them from holding a practising certificate while carrying out social work duties:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a public officer to provide social work services in the course of his duties as a public officer without holding a practising certificate.”
This looks contradictory. Registration is meant to protect vulnerable people, so why are government officers doing the same job exempt?
The minister has suggested civil servants will be brought in eventually. But the act sets no timetable and no legal duty to end the exemption.
A transitional arrangement might be justified. An indefinite exemption is harder to defend.
Professional standards should follow the work being done, not who is doing it.
A better way forward
The act deserves credit for recognising social work as a profession and trying to protect the public.
But professionalisation must not come at the cost of professional independence, and human compassion from civil society groups and ordinary individuals.
Several changes would strengthen the act:
- Clarify the definition of social work services, separating professional practice from voluntary or charitable work.
- Expressly protect volunteers, family and community caregivers from being treated as unauthorised practitioners.
- Give clear guidance to NGOs, so professional staff meet standards while other staff remain free to serve.
- Rebalance the regulatory structure to give practitioners and civil society a meaningful institutional role in setting standards and ethics.
- Review the exemption for public officers, making it genuinely temporary with a clear path to full compliance.
- Recognise experience alongside academic qualifications, so the people who built Malaysia’s social welfare sector are not shut out by red tape.
Regulation should protect the public. It should not police compassion, limit civic action or leave professional standards mainly in the hands of government administrators.
Malaysia needs a framework that raises the standing of social work, respects professional expertise and values the role of civil society.
The Social Work Profession Act can do this, but only if it pairs professionalisation with autonomy, clarity and an understanding of how social care actually works on the ground.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
Thank you for this article on the law affecting social work. Many NGOs and civil society organizations could be affected by this. Many grassroots organizations helping B40, special needs and providing education etc already have core principles and codes of ethics of reasonably high standards to prevent malpractice, fraud, corruption, discrimination and the like. They also have their own disciplinary procedures. Will the government take note of these and allow them to resolve any breach of principles and practice before seeking to directly control their operations? The interests of those in need of these services must be the priority and any serious offences committed by practitioners or volunteers can be prosecuted by criminal law.