WHAT SAY THE EXPERTS | FASHION
FOUNDING TEAM – INTERNATIONAL FASHION CHAMBER MALAYSIA
FOUNDER – SUSTAINABLE FASHION TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS HUB AND CENTER OF CLOTHING TECHNOLOGY AND FASHION, INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS OF EXCELLENCE (IBE) – UITM
RESEARCH FELLOW – THE DESIGN SCHOOL – FACULTY OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY, TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY
PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGIST – MALAYSIAN BOARD OF TECHNOLOGY CHARTERED FELLOWSHIP (CLOTHING TECHNOLOGY) – TEXTILE INSTITUTE, UK
15 October 2025 | Interview By: Liyana Mohd Zaid
We recently sat down with Datin Ts. Dr. Norsaadah Binti Zakaria CText FTI truly inspiring figure in textile and fashion technology and pioneer in Fashion TVET education. She shared her inspiring journey, focusing on her philosophy of self-inspiration and determination. Dr. Norsaadah is the Founder of the Sustainable Fashion Technology Business Hub and Center of Clothing Technology and Fashion, IBE -UiTM, a research fellow at Taylor’s University’s Design School and recently as the Founding Member of the newly launched International Fashion Chamber Malaysia. Her extensive work in academic publications, particularly on the Malaysian sizing system, stands out. In our conversation, Dr. Saadah openly discussed the challenges she’s faced and her unwavering commitment to sustainability, particularly through advocating for national sizing and inclusive fashion for various community segments.
Please read on to learn more about Dr. Saadah work and the wealth of experience she brought in this industry.
[Dr. Saadah’s Inspiring Journey]
Dr. Saadah: Thank you for having this session. My journey began as a student taking Diploma in Textile Technology right here at UiTM in 1987-1990. UiTM is truly unique, being the only institution in Malaysia to offer textile technology programs since 1974. We had a diploma program for four decades, and then in 2001, I had the incredible opportunity to teach the first batch of degree students in Textile Technology and Merchandising.
In 2001, I began my academic journey lecturing at the Department of Textile Technology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, UiTM before expanding my horizons through international experience in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. During my PhD, I worked closely with manufacturers and SIRIM, focusing on the critical area of standard sizing. This collaboration deepened my understanding of garment fit and production needs. After completing my PhD, I broadened my international network and engaged with global experts in clothing technology and fashion design. These experiences naturally guided my transition from textile and clothing technology into the dynamic field of fashion design.
I also collaborated with an international fashion school in Greece offering a professional program accredited by the Textile Institute-UK since 2011. I helped adopt the Telestia-AB system for Sparks Academy in Jakarta, Indonesia and the Raffles Design Institute in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After nearly eight years abroad, I brought the Telestia-AB system back to Malaysia – a program dedicated to advancing TVET-based skills in fashion education specifically the Apparel Product Development. This marked a turning point in my journey, as I transitioned from academic teaching at the university to championing technical and vocational education. Immersing myself fully in the professional TVET environment allowed me to truly understand the distinction between academic and skills-based learning. In 2017, I established the Center of Clothing Technology and Fashion at the Institute of Business Excellence (IBE), UiTM, establishing a bridge between education, technology, and industry. I started to introduce the Professional TVET programmes using the Telestia-AB and Telestia CAD Creator systems from Greece, extending their impact across TVET institutions, universities, and manufacturing sectors in Malaysia.
2017- The Centre of Clothing Technology and Fashion, IBE- UiTM
Around that time in 2016 Malaysian Board of Technology (MBOT) was introduced. MBOT is a remarkable professional body in Malaysia that recognizes professionals across 24 industries. It’s unique because it encompasses diverse disciplines, unlike other bodies focused on single discipline. So, my journey evolved from academia to TVET, and then into professional development, which is what I continue to do today. After becoming a chartered professional both locally and internationally, I shifted my focus to sustainability. That’s when I established the Sustainable Fashion Technology and Business Hub in 2021, a platform designed to integrate sustainability principles into professional programmes and to guide fashion companies in transforming into responsible and sustainable practitioners. This entire journey, from academia to TVET, professional development, and finally sustainability, encompasses the critical aspects of the textile and clothing industry today.
2021-Sustainable Fashion Technology and Business Hub -IBE , UiTM
(The Importance of Sizing Technology)
Dr. Saadah: When we talk about “sizing”, we’re directly connected to anthropometric data. Sizing is, without a doubt, the most crucial part of the clothing industry’s ecosystem. If you consider clothing production, garment making, or fashion design, it all begins with sizing. We design clothes to be worn by people, and when we talk about people, we’re talking about their body sizes and shapes. That’s where sizing enters the picture, and it’s the first tier of the entire ecosystem. You must get the sizing right first, and only then move into design and production. Sizing is truly the core of the clothing industry.
“..It’s the first tier of the entire ecosystem. You must get the sizing right first, and only then move into design and production. Sizing is truly the core of the clothing industry.”
Unfortunately, in many countries, especially here in Malaysia, sizing isn’t taken seriously enough. My involvement in sizing began around 2004, when I was invited to join a SIRIM committee focused on standardizing sizing in Malaysia. This was 20 years ago! SIRIM recognized the importance of standard sizing for our clothing industry, which is precisely why my PhD research delved into sizing systems.
Dr. Saadah: Frankly, when I joined the sizing committee, we were incredibly active. I was part of the team that worked to adapt the international ISO sizing standards to serve as a reference for our local clothing industry. Between 2004 and 2007, before I left for Indonesia, our goal was to bring the entire industry together to create our own standard sizing system. However, due to my departure and my ongoing sizing research, that plan didn’t fully materialize at the time.
What I did accomplish, which was to build the first anthropometric survey for the clothing industry in Malaysia, focused on children. I measured approximately 2,500 children aged 7 to 17 to gain a comprehensive understanding of Malaysian children’s body dimensions, sizes, and shapes. This helped us model their unique characteristics. My motivation for this research stemmed from a personal frustration when I was buying school uniforms for my son. I couldn’t find the correct size. In Malaysia, children’s sizing is often based on age, but age categories often overlap.
A seven-year-old may not fit into a size labelled for their age, while an eight-year-old might comfortably wear the size for a seven year old which is a smaller size. This observation made it clear that sizing should not be determined by age alone, but by actual body measurements. It highlights the critical need for accurate, data-driven sizing systems in garment development.
[Understanding Malaysian Sizing]
Dr. Saadah: When we talk about Malaysian sizing, we’re essentially discussing the understanding of our population’s body dimensions. In simple language, “sizing” refers to the different sizes – small, medium, large, XL, XS, that we use for mass-produced, ready-to-wear garments. However, effective sizing must be based on anthropometric data. The scientific term “anthropometric” means “understanding the body dimensions”. Therefore, our sizing system should be rooted in anthropometric data, and crucially, anthropometry should be based on the population of our own country.
You simply cannot borrow or use the standard sizes of other populations. Yet, this is precisely what’s happening in Malaysia: we lack our own sizing system for our clothing retail industry. As a result, we rely on US sizes, UK sizes, or other generic standards whose origins are often unknown to producers. Sometimes, they adapt these standards to suit their target market, but true sizing should stem from our own initiative to measure as many people as possible. This allows a deeper understanding of the Malaysian body sizes, dimensions, shapes, and proportions, capturing the melting pot variations that define the nation’s unique blend of ethnic and cultural diversity. This includes understanding the decomposition of curvature, our body contours, and even bulges due to fat. If these factors aren’t considered in our sizing, the fit of the clothing will suffer, directly impacting the industry’s sustainability.
Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: Dr. Norsaadah’s Quest for the Malaysian Anthropometric Standard Sizing
This directly helps prevent the issue of clothing ending up in landfills. A key factor for good clothing fit is proper sizing. That’s why I’ve taken sizing research so seriously, because I understand that without it, the entire quality of clothing is at risk of failure.
Dr. Saadah: Frankly, in the field of sizing in Malaysia, despite its acknowledged importance, there is still a lack of widespread support from retail organizations and even manufacturers. This is primarily due to the significant budget needed. To create a robust sizing system, we need a standardized anthropometric survey. For example, when SizeUK and SizeUS were developed, they involved measuring at least 15,000 people. SizeIndia just completed its national sizing survey, encompassing 12,000 to 14,000 individuals. My training in Japan for anthropometric surveys and sizing system emphasized this: a national survey is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the individual sizes in that country.
For our industry to truly grasp sizing, we need a large-scale national sizing research project where we measure and categorize our population into exact sizes. However, I have struggled to encourage the industry to undertake such a survey because of the large budget it requires. Our major industry players are primarily focused on contract manufacturing for external markets. Our local industry often lacks this kind of sizing data for retail ready-to-wear (RTW) sizing, and customers are not truly benefiting from it. We are using varied sizes, leading to a lot of misfits and customer complaints. Yet, these complaints often do not reach manufacturers because they operate with their own templates and consider their sizes “okay” since customers do not typically return items. Instead, customers often opt for quick alterations, which is the fastest solution. Thus, this approach has become less sustainable over time. The reliance on continuous alterations leads to inefficient production processes, where garments are first made and then modified to fit, resulting in excess fabric waste and resource loss. Such practices do not align with a sustainable fashion ecosystem for the RTW retail shops.
Although we do not yet have a standardized national anthropometric sizing system for ready-to-wear (RTW) clothing in retail, some local manufacturers have independently collected and refined their own sizing data over the years. These manufacturers typically produce customized mass-production garments such as corporate wear, office uniforms, or university uniforms etc.. Their sizing approach has been relatively efficient, as the framework evolved organically from accumulated data of previous clients, which is then adjusted and customized for new ones. However, these sizing systems are not aligned with a national standard that accurately represents the true body sizes and shapes of the Malaysian population.
This is why my research continues to centre on sizing standardization and fit optimization. I have also authored books on sizing systems and anthropometric applications to educate the industry on implementing accurate, sustainable, and data-driven sizing practices.
Now, the solution for sizing surveys is shifting towards smaller, targeted markets. I no longer aim for a national sizing survey due to the massive budget needed. Instead, I am now focusing on specific target groups. For instance, if I can collaborate with tailors who hold databases of their clients’ body measurements, I can develop customized sizing systems that reflect real customer profiles. This not only reduces material waste but also builds client loyalty, as the ready-to-wear garments are designed to fit their actual body dimensions.
Dr. Saadah: In the sense of sizing, I do not see many changes. The only structured statistical sizing system developed for clothing industry from anthropometric data at far is based on my research on children’s anthropometric survey. Another anthropometric survey and sizing system developed was based on foot dimensions amounting to 1000 data. While it has not yet been standardized by SIRIM, which is a goal I’m working towards, my research isn’t large enough to represent the entire nation.
When we talk about comprehensive sizing, we must consider different geographical areas. This is because diverse lifestyles and food diets across regions impact sizes and shapes. For truly effective Malaysian sizing, we would need to collect data from state to state. This would reveal how people from different states, cultures, and races vary, making sizing in Malaysia inherently more complex. This inherent diversity needs to be acknowledged and addressed first.
The other change I feel I can influence in Malaysian sizing is by educating students in this field. I want them to understand that before they even design or sew a garment, they need to grasp sizing. That’s what I refer to as the micro level of sizing—you begin by understanding the body dimensions first which is to practice accurate measurement techniques, and only then do you develop the assorted size categories.
One way I believe that I can contribute to improving Malaysian sizing standards is by education. I aim to instill in students the importance of understanding body dimensions, the precision measurement techniques and analysis of the size and shapes before they begin designing or constructing garments. This micro-level approach to sizing—starting with correct body measurement then developing the sizing system as the foundation for consistent and well-fitting garment sizes.
[The Malaysian Sizing Challenge]
Dr. Saadah: When we talk about international standards, we have ISO 8559:2018, which specifies which body parts to measure. This is a global standard for sizing measurement points. Frankly, at this point I can name about 20 countries worldwide who have completed their national sizing surveys, including SizeUK, SizeUS, Size Canada, SizeChina, SizeIndia, SizePhilippines, SizeThailand, SizeJapan, SizeMexico, and SizeAustralia.
When considering sizing standards, we need to account for national differences. Some countries are homogeneous, meaning their population is primarily composed of one ethnic group, like Korea, Japan, India, and most European countries. This makes national sizing straightforward. However, such countries like Malaysia, Singapore and the USA are “melting pots” – we have diverse races, ethnicities, and people. This makes sizing more challenging.
The only comparison I can draw in terms of sizing challenges is with SizeUS. They have conducted a large national sizing survey and have categorized their diverse populations living in the USA. They are continuously studying how to ensure these diverse groups can fit an overall standard sizing system. However, they are now moving towards inclusive sizing, which I believe we can delve into later.
For homogeneous countries, their standard sizing provides an incredibly good overall picture of the population’s sizes. But when it comes to Malaysia, we do not have our own national sizing data. We have never conducted an anthropometric survey specifically for the clothing industry on a large scale. While we have done research in Malaysian ergonomic design, and anthropometric studies for medical purposes (for health and nutrition), a comprehensive anthropometric survey and sizing study for the clothing industry simply has not been done here on a larger scale.
Dr. Saadah: There are two main challenges. And to be honest, when we talk about inclusive sizing, we do not even need to look as far as international expansion — the issues begin right here, within our local context. We already have talented designers and producers in Malaysia, but the truth is, we have not fully considered the breadth and depth of inclusive sizing across all consumer categories.
Globally, “sizing” tends to refer to standard measurements for a standard population — adult females, female children, adult males, male children — very generalized and highly standardized. But inclusive sizing means going further. It involves breaking that standard down into more specific groups. We cannot just lump all adults together or all children together. There is a significant differences between children sizing like baby, infants, toddlers and teenagers while adult sizing like young adults, mature adults, and the elderly — all of whom require different sizing considerations. That is the core of inclusive sizing.
Then there’s functional sizing — tailored sizing for individuals with specific physical conditions. For instance, people with scoliosis, where the spine curves in an S-shape, or cerebral palsy whom require garments that accommodate those body shapes in a balanced and functional way. This is still part of the inclusivity conversation, but it is something we have not resolved locally. So how can we talk about inclusive sizing on an international scale when we are still grappling with it at home?
One significant point — and I was approached about this a few years ago — is that companies like Nike are interested in understanding our local sizing standards. This becomes especially important when international brands want to export their products to Malaysia. They cannot just rely on US sizing. If they ship in bulk and the sizes do not fit our population, it results in failure — for both sales and customer satisfaction.
That is why I always emphasize the need for our own national sizing standard. We must be able to show how international brand products can be adjusted to fit our consumers accurately. Right now, we do not have comprehensive local data. Usually, when these companies come in, they will ask for references. This is also why SIRIM has long advocated for a Malaysian standard size — so these brands can access real, representative measurements, understand our market better, and reduce misfit risks.
Today, in the context of sustainability, this matters even more. Brands are trying to avoid product waste and landfill disposal caused by poor fit and high return rates. Now, they will often ask: “Give us your national standard sizing so we can match our clothing to your people.” That is how the industry is moving — to minimize waste, avoid unnecessary returns, and be more environmentally responsible.
It is a challenge, because many people do not fully understand the connection between sizing and the industry at large. There is a perception that as long as “sizes” exist, the job is done.
And when customers face problems, there is no clear channel for them to raise concerns.
I have authored articles in newspapers such as The Star and New Straits Times, highlighting how customers — especially those with unique body types, whether plus-sized, petite, or those with asymmetric body features — often cannot find clothes that fit. Their only choices are to alter ready-to-wear pieces or resort to custom tailoring. That is a sign that inclusive sizing is still a major gap, and one we urgently need to address if we want to compete globally and serve people properly at home.
Dr. Saadah: Anthropometry is indeed about measurement, specifically the understanding of body dimensions. It involves identifying precise landmarks on the body, the bone structure, the position of different body dimensions and strong grasp of anatomical principles for applied design. When you understand body anatomy and these landmarks, you measure at the correct points. For instance, when we talk about shoulders, you’re supposed to feel the shoulder bone (acromion) sitting at the highest point of shoulder blade (scapula) in which to be marked at right and left of the shoulder and then measured from bone to the other bone. Without this precision, your measurements won’t be accurate, and you won’t achieve a good fit.
That is the crucial connection between anthropometry and sizing. Why do we do anthropometry? Because sizing must be based on it. Anthropometry provides the understanding of where to measure at the right point. If you do not measure correctly, your sizing will fail. You categorize people based on these anthropometric landmarks, measuring them precisely and accurately. This allows you to cluster them into the correct ranges. Sizing involves grouping people according to dimensions within specific ranges. If the body dimensions are not measured correctly, your sizing fails. When that happens, manufacturers produce garments that do not fit well, and everyone ends up having their clothes altered. This leads to unsustainable practices.
[Skills for Inclusivity]
Dr. Saadah: First, I believe that as students in clothing technology or the fashion industry, the most important concept they need to grasp is to engineer the garment, rather than simply “making” it. We need to shift their perspective to consider the body components of who they are making the garments for. Garments are ultimately created for people to wear—yet this fundamental truth is often overlooked by both industry and educational institutions. Many fashion programmes focus heavily on design as an artistic and aesthetic concept, without adequately emphasizing the importance of designing for real bodies and real wearability.
When designing for people, we must recognize that the human body is composed of complex, interrelated components that directly influence garment fit. This understanding must begin at the educational level. Institutions should embed a structured process that starts with anthropometric measurement, progresses to fitting, and culminates in precise pattern making. Students must first develop accurate foundational body patterns. Once a garment fits the body correctly at this base level, any design, no matter how intricate will not only look good but also ensure comfort and wearability. Fit is not a final step; it is the foundation of design success. This is the made to measure (MTM) production process which involved quality tailored garments. On the other hand, for RTW collection, the unique sizing system process should also being taught so that they understand their collection of garments are to fit within a range of sizes which is labelled as S,M,L and the fit is more critical.
These are the essential skills we need to train students in, so that when they enter the industry and are assigned to sew or create garments, they will apply these skills to ensure production success. This extends to retail and sales. This entire ecosystem of sustainable practices will then lead to the successful production of good quality garments that have a prolonged life, meant to last and not be quickly discarded into landfills. This is what I constantly advocate, prioritizing the process first, sizing and fit rather than focusing solely on reuse or recycling, which are essentially end-of-life solutions when the initial failure has already occurred.
Not many people think about, “Oh, I want to recycle my clothes,” because fashion is constantly evolving, and people always want to wear something different. What we hope for in sustainable practices is that if you can provide a high-quality garment with a good fit, for a person to wear it for a long time. Even when they no longer want it, they can pass it on to someone else as a “pre-loved” item. Pre-loved garments are those still in good condition, wearable for several more cycles. We want to prevent clothing from being dumped as quickly as possible. That’s why we’re moving away from advocating fast fashion and instead promoting slow fashion. And within slow fashion, sizing becomes paramount. We need good SIZING, because sizing essentially means good FIT.
Dr. Saadah: We are very fortunate that we still have tailors here who offer made-to-measure services. So, what’s the balance between made-to-measure(MTM) clothes and standardized sizing the ready to wear (RTW) clothes? When we talk about made-to-measure, we’re still talking about sizing. I don’t want to limit “sizing” to just categories of sizes. Sizing also fundamentally means ensuring the garment fits the wearer’s body. So, whether you’re creating ready-to-wear for different sizes or made-to-measure for a specific size, you still need to understand the impact of proper sizing.
For local made-to-measure garments to thrive in the Malaysian industry, tailors need to understand the significant value of sizing itself. They need to study the wearer’s unique size and shape. You can’t just measure without understanding the overall silhouette because everyone is different. When we discuss sizes, we’re talking not only about body measurements and dimensions, but you also need to consider shape. People have various shapes: pear shapes, apple shapes, rectangle shapes and etc. When fitting a garment, you must account for these shapes. Furthermore, people have different proportions, sometimes a shorter torso and longer legs. How do you design to balance that? These are all considerations for sizing, even in made-to-measure garments. Ready-to-wear has its own sizing challenges, and made-to-measure has its own, but both absolutely require a deep understanding of sizing.
Dr. Saadah: For young designers, I’d emphasize that the landscape of fashion design has fundamentally shifted. We’re now dealing with consumers who truly understand what they want. Forget the consumers of 15 years ago, influenced by their environment, peers, or what others wore. Today’s consumers are far more intelligent, more self-independent. They want to be seen for who they truly are.
This means fashion designers need to segment their target markets. Historically, a designer might create a collection for a broad group, like “adult females who earn a certain amount,” defined by income and age. But today, with inclusive sizing, designers must begin by focusing on smaller, more specific segments of people.
Take teenagers, for instance. In Malaysia, we notably lack dedicated teenage sizing or sections. Children can buy clothes up to age 12, then they immediately jump to adult sections. What about the teenagers aged 13 to 18? Where do they buy their clothes? They can’t consistently find suitable items in the adult section. So, designers need to concentrate on creating for these specific, often overlooked, populations.
Similarly, consider adults ranging from 18 to 60. Where do those aged 50 to 60 buy their clothing? The designs in the 20-year-old section simply aren’t suitable. For today’s fashion designers, when we talk about inclusiveness, it means looking into specific needs. Look into petite sizes. Look into teenage sizes. Look into the elderly sizes. And even consider designing functional yet fashionable items for different needs, focusing on functional and adaptive sizing and design.
Having said this, we’re presenting a vast, exciting spectrum for designers today. It’s no longer like 10 or 20 years ago, when designers only focused on general designs for everyone. Today, designers don’t have to overlap. I can confidently say, “I’m a fashion designer, and my purpose is to design fashionable clothes for specific needs people. I design for people with disabilities.” I am still a fashion designer, but one who caters to individuals with disabilities. People with disabilities also need clothing that is both functional and fashionable. You can’t just design something functional that isn’t aesthetically pleasing. We can’t discriminate against individuals with disabilities, they also desire fashionable attire, but it needs to be functional.
So, designers today have a wider, more diverse array of career paths when we consider inclusive sizing and design. We don’t have many designers focusing on petite fashion. While we have plus-size options, there are only two or three established companies, like Ms. Read, which has been a market leader for 10-20 years. They’ve almost had a monopoly because they were one of the few. We continue to produce fashion designers from our academic institutions, but their mindset often remains fixed on standard designs for the general public, not on inclusivity.
Inclusive sizing and inclusive design are the present and the future. These are two critical areas we must seriously address for sustainable practices. We want to cater to specific target markets and reduce the inventory of unsatisfied returns.
This means examining sizes, designs, and specific segments of the population you wish to serve. By doing so, designers can confidently say, “I’m not afraid of competition anymore, because I have my strength, my specialization. I am a designer for children. I am a designer for petite sizes and so forth.” This creates distinct niches, avoiding unnecessary overlap. But today, the challenge for fashion designers is often that they don’t know where to specialize because they haven’t been trained with the mindset of inclusive sizing and inclusive design.
[The Future of Malaysian Sizing & the Power of the Consumer Voice]
Dr. Saadah: Absolutely, they will. In fact, I believe they are already beginning to realize it, particularly from the perspective of standards. SIRIM, for instance, has acknowledged the need for a standard sizing system that directly benefits local producers. This will likely become a key agenda. I’m still actively advocating for and working on this. Currently, we’re undertaking small-scale initiatives, trying to understand specific groups of people and then sharing our findings. One of my PhD student is researching the expansion of tailor enterprises, where they leverage their existing customer databases. The tailors can share their client measurement database for us to build into a customized sizing system. This is the direction I see Malaysian sizing heading. I’m no longer solely focused on a single national standard, but rather on customized sizing, which is inherently more inclusive.
We’re aiming to empower individual companies to build their own sizing systems based on their unique client data, allowing them to focus on designing and providing tailoring satisfaction. This approach is far more meaningful and achievable. For any company to become successful and established, they need to deeply understand their clients. This involves data analytics, customer features understanding, analyzing them effectively, and delivering quality clothing. We’re moving towards a more adaptable approach, particularly for micro and SME companies, helping them establish robust clothing businesses.
Dr. Saadah: Customer input on sizing is, I would argue, the most critical input. To this day, I believe the issues of garment fitting among consumers are not adequately voiced. Consumers haven’t been given a proper platform to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with sizing. We simply don’t have that infrastructure.
At one point, when I was part of the SIRIM sizing committee, we collaborated with a consumers’ association. We tried to gather insights, and they conducted a survey, which revealed that 90% of consumers were dissatisfied with existing sizes. This was 20 years ago! Despite this, we lacked a proper platform for them to vocalize their concerns. If we had one, it would likely spur local manufacturers to realize the need to improve.
But today, we don’t. You simply go to buy clothes, and there are so many different sizes. You can’t even ask a friend to pick out clothes for you, because your own wardrobe likely contains S, M, and L sizes, depending on the brand. Every company has a different size chart. You might buy a size S in one shop and need a completely different size in another. This lack of standardization means you can’t truly trust anything.
And today, with e-commerce, buying clothes online is standard. How do you buy? How do you know which size to choose, especially for our local clothing? We still face this problem. We don’t know if a size S will fit us, because sometimes when you talk about sizing, it needs to be clearly defined. If you’re choosing an S, your shoulder measurement should be within a specific range, and your chest within another. If it’s clear, you’re likely to buy the right size. But if there’s no chart, you can’t buy confidently.
My advice regarding fit problems and consumer feedback on sizes is that we need to encourage more consumers to speak up about their clothing sizes, whether they’re satisfied or not. From their complaints, we can then take action. Without their complaints, we can’t truly say there’s a problem. I’ve tried speaking to manufacturers, telling them there’s an issue, and they’ve responded by saying, “We haven’t received any complaints.” So, consumers need to be more educated and more discerning when choosing sizes. If you choose the wrong size, you’ll end up buying something that doesn’t fit, requiring an extra step to get it altered. That’s an inefficient way to shop.
Dr. Saadah: The only way, I believe, is for consumers to truly understand their own body sizes and shapes. They need to know which parts of their body are critical or present a challenge for fit. Crucially, when buying online, reputable brands will always provide a size chart, and consumers need to understand how to measure themselves accurately.
So, customers or consumers need to learn or acquire the skill of self-measurement. When you’re buying online, you need to measure your own body. They should have some training on how to measure their body precisely and keep those measurements handy. That way, when they shop, they can choose the right or correct size. However, it’s equally important that the online size chart clearly states the dimensions being referred to. You can’t just list “Size S” and “Size L” without specifying the corresponding measurements and ranges. You’re supposed to fall within that range to find a good fit. I think everyone would appreciate having a bit more guidance when shopping online. The most important fact is that, retailers who sell clothes must know what are the key dimensions used to build the sizing system in which dictates the size S,M, L , XL because that dictates the fit of the clothes when the customers choose their size range when buying clothing online especially.
[Fashion, Inclusivity, and Societal Impact]
Dr. Saadah: When you talk about inclusiveness, I think we’ve touched on this already. Inclusive sizing is undeniably the current trend. It’s a topic widely discussed, especially voiced by “melting pot” countries like the USA, where diverse populations reside. Those who feel excluded from standard sizing are speaking up, arguing that it’s unfair. They lack suitable sizing options, particularly plus-sized women, who face immense difficulty finding appropriate clothing. Even if plus-size shops exist, their offerings aren’t always thoroughly developed based on comprehensive population data. This means anthropometric surveys on all plus-sized individuals aren’t being fully carried out, and current offerings might not truly represent the majority of plus-sized body types. We’re merely taking a “standard” plus-size. We can’t do that. You need a very thorough understanding of the variations within plus sizes.
We’re talking about different segments of sizing. Consider individuals with disabilities, their sizes are different. The specific body shapes and challenges related to their disability need to be carefully studied. When we discuss inclusivity here in Malaysia and its consumers, we need to empower them to vocalize their needs more, thereby creating opportunities for designers to create for them. There needs to be a stronger connection. Someone needs to actively seek out consumers and ask, “What kind of design do you need? What kind of sizing do you need?” This input can then directly inform designers.
Even our current designers often lack the exposure to understand that they should be designing for inclusivity. The very meaning of inclusivity isn’t widely understood. Yet, it’s the agenda of today: inclusive sizing. Everyone, from all walks of life, from a global perspective, we are talking about wanting to focus into small, specific sizing and design. Our Malaysian fashion designers can truly seize this opportunity. They can start focusing on the smaller populations that truly need help.
When we talk about inclusive sizing and inclusive design, we’re primarily referring to these underserved groups. Even for maternity clothing, we don’t have many dedicated shops here; it’s not another prominent fashion segment. We only have a few secluded maternity areas, as if it’s not a significant need. But people get pregnant every day! Fashion designers might shy away from saying, “I am a maternity designer.” However, these are precisely the needed areas where designers could innovate. Imagine: “I specialize in understanding the different sizes and shapes of a pregnant lady. I want to design something unique and fashionable for them. I have their own sizing and their own designs.” That is inclusive design. The connection between inclusive design and inclusive sizing lies between consumers and designers.
Today’s society, inclusivity is a growing imperative. We need to encourage more consumers to speak up about what they need. We need to engage with diverse consumer populations, not just the “normal” consumers who want fashionable items, but also people who have problems with their body shape. Talk to these individuals. People with disabilities. People with unique body sizes. A few months ago, I attended a forum on plus sizes where four plus-sized women shared their frustrations. They spoke about how they wished they could simply go to many different shops and easily find clothing in their size that also suited their desired design. Currently, they can shop for a lot of clothing, but it’s not inclusive.
These are the things I suggest, research should be conducted among these diverse groups. Get this research published. Talk about the needs of different sizes and shapes. This will open the eyes of designers, showing them the opportunities that exist. Some designers enjoy designing for the entire population, while others are very compassionate and begin to investigate. “I want to study the differences in shape due to a disability. I want to contribute something meaningful to them.” That’s the connection I believe should emerge in the coming years among clothing consumers, fashion designers, and sizing experts.
Dr. Saadah: I’ll tell you why it’s often focused on plus size. If we compare plus size to petite — which is essentially the opposite. There’s a key difference: if you’re petite, you can still buy something and alter it to fit. But if you’re plus-sized, you can’t do that. You can’t buy something small and make it bigger.
That’s the cry of the plus-size community. They can’t find anything that fits. There’s a shop in Pavilion (I believe she meant Pachanga Mall) that offers “big and tall” sizes. Some people are both big and tall; they need more material to cover them. They can’t just walk into any store. And even getting something tailored isn’t easy. It takes time and isn’t always accessible. They want to shop like everyone else: off the rack, without extra steps.
Now, the plus-size population might not be the largest in numbers, but their struggle is very real and very visible. As I’ve said before, the term “inclusivity”, whether in sizing or design — has only gained momentum in the past five years. This is because those with unique sizing and body shape challenges are tired of being left out.
They want the same shopping experience as everyone else; to walk into a store, find fashionable items in their size, and feel seen. That’s why the focus tends to be on plus-size consumers. Because you can alter something big to make it small, but you can’t alter something small to make it big. That’s the main reason we hear fewer complaints from petite consumers. The struggle for plus-size individuals is more difficult, more visible, and far more frustrating.
[Challenging Traditional Beauty Standards Through Sizing]
Dr. Saadah: When we talk about traditional beauty standards and whether fashion should challenge them? Yes, absolutely. The industry must challenge itself.
Think about it: almost every model on the runway or in fashion ads wears a “perfect” body. You rarely, if ever, see larger individuals or people with non-proportional body types showcased in fashion shows. This has become the societal norm. The desire to see only those with “ideal” body sizes and shapes representing a collection.
But perhaps one day, we’ll fully embrace inclusive sizing. That means featuring all sorts of body types on the runway, proving that fashion isn’t reserved for just one body type. If we do that, the industry can begin to reshape public perception and truly include everyone.
The issue goes deeper. Fashion design schools typically train students to build collections; but not necessarily for real, diverse bodies. When a show is presented, it’s almost always based on garments designed to fit “perfect” models. If the garment is too big, they’ll just pin it at the back. They don’t learn real fitting techniques — because fashion shows themselves have dictated what bodies are “acceptable” on stage. Larger or non-standard bodies are still not widely accepted in these spaces.
That’s why we’re seeing a growing outcry. People are saying: “We have these bodies too. We deserve to wear beautiful clothing. Who is designing for us?” The fashion world needs to start creating space for everyone, so people of all sizes and shapes can walk in a fashion show and be embraced by the audience.
We need to normalize seeing different types of bodies wearing stylish clothes. It shouldn’t always be about the “nice” or “perfect” body on the runway. And let’s be honest, many clothes look amazing in the store or on the model, but when we wear them, they don’t look or feel the same. That experience has a psychological impact. It disheartens people.
These are the issues we’re talking about now: clothing psychology, clothing emotion, and the feeling of being left out — all rooted in the push for inclusivity. This is also why the inclusivity agenda is gaining momentum.
As a leader in developing professional and certified programs for Malaysia’s textile and clothing industry, what gaps in knowledge or skill do you see in the current workforce? How do these programs address these gaps, particularly in areas like sustainable sizing practices and digital manufacturing?
Dr. Saadah: When we talk about the skills agenda, there’s still a lot of work to be done within the industry; particularly within training institutions. And this is not just a Malaysian issue; it’s a global one. But focusing on Malaysia specifically, we have two main types of institutions training talent in this field: those focusing on fashion design, and those on garment making.
Universities that teach fashion design tend to focus solely on design. Meanwhile, institutions offering TVET programs in garment making focus almost entirely on the technical side — garment construction.
What we need is a holistic approach to teaching and training in garment engineering. This means training students to understand the structure of the body and how design interacts with it. Just like in product engineering, where designers and engineers work together to ensure a design is both functional and structurally sound — fashion designers and clothing technologists need to work together to create garments that are not only beautiful but also properly fitting the body.
Currently, these two functions are too separated. Design is treated purely as aesthetics. Garment construction is seen as just the technical skill. But there’s a missing middle: fit and sizing. We’re not training students to understand how the body moves, how it curves, and how the garment needs to respond to that.
If we want to move forward, my suggestion is clear: implement holistic, cross-disciplinary training. Students must first be taught how to measure correctly. That means learning anthropometry; understanding body landmarks, human anatomy, and the full spectrum of body shapes, sizes, proportions, curvatures, and contours. Only then can they move on to designing clothing that truly fits and flatters.
This is what we’re missing in our current system: the integration of design, construction, fit, and sizing into a complete and sustainable workflow. Without it, we’ll always be working in silos, and the end product will always fall short.
[The Perfect Fit and the Problem of Wastage]
Dr. Saadah: A perfect size definitely exists — when you’re truly catering to that size. That is what I consider a perfect size.
Let me explain. A “perfect size” isn’t the idealized hourglass figure promoted by the industry or society. It’s not about some universal standard of proportion. To me, a perfect size is when you make a garment that fits a particular person exactly, according to their measurements, shape, and proportions. That’s perfect sizing.
Now, if you’re working in ready-to-wear, you can’t create a garment for every individual. But you can develop a sizing system that’s based on the body shapes of your actual target population. For example, if you’re a boutique owner with a database of 1,000 clients with data of their measurements, you can develop a customized sizing system based on that group.
You might cluster those 1,000 individuals and identify, say, 20 sizing categories. You’d still label them S, M, L, XL; but each could have sub-variants: S1, S2, S3, and so on. So even if two people are both “Size S,” they may not wear the same S. One may be S1, the other S2.
In Malaysia, when someone thinks they’re a size L, they may not actually fit into every garment labeled L — and that’s the problem.
That’s why I strongly advocate for a robust sizing system. A proper system breaks down generic sizes into specific, more inclusive sub-sizes. If we can achieve that, we can move closer to garments that truly fit everyone. That, to me, is perfect sizing.
And this is precisely why sizing is so critical in the clothing industry. Because sizing dictates how well we understand the body of the person wearing the garment. It’s also tied to sustainability. If clothes don’t fit, they get returned, altered, or discarded, often ending up in landfills. So, a proper sizing system doesn’t just ensure fit. It prevents waste and supports a more sustainable industry.
Dr. Saadah: There are definitely many factors contributing to wastage. And yes, sizing is absolutely one of them.
When you don’t provide a proper sizing system, you’re not basing your garment production on the actual body shapes of the local population. That’s our core issue: our sizing system isn’t based on Malaysians. It never has been. We haven’t measured thousands of people here to understand their sizes, shapes, and how to categorize them accurately into S, M, L, and so on. We’re just borrowing sizing systems from external sources or creating them based on experiences of measuring many people without a proper analyses for efficient sizing system.
Sometimes, when you walk into a shop, you’ll ask: “What’s a size 32?” or “Is 32 the same as a size 4?” These are arbitrary numbers based on different body structures — and our population is different.
They may appear similar, but their sizing needs are unique. The same goes for us. If we conducted similar research in Malaysia and compared it with Indonesia or Brunei, we might find some similarities, but we would still be different.
This missing link — between population-specific data and garment sizing, directly contributes to clothing waste.
While you might argue it’s due to fast fashion and people getting bored and throwing things away, people will still buy. But when that purchase doesn’t suit them, that satisfaction won’t last long.
[Challenges and Realities]
Dr. Saadah: We can definitely achieve it anytime, really. The challenge is not about capability, but budget. Developing a national sizing system requires a national sizing survey, and that means significant funding.
When I was training in Japan (2011), there were two groups; one from Malaysia and one from India. We spent about 10 days learning the full process, from understanding body anatomy to the methods needed to create a national sizing system. Japan even offered scholarships to train people to do this in their own countries.
For example, Size UK and Size US each measured around 15,000 individuals to build their standards. The more people you measure, the more accurate and inclusive your sizing system becomes.
We cannot claim to represent a population of 30 million by measuring only 1,000 people — it simply wouldn’t be representative. To truly capture Malaysia, we’d need to survey people state by state. Each state is unique; their culture, geography, lifestyles and even eating habits are different. People in Terengganu live differently from those in Johor or Sabah. All these factors affect body shape and size.
I’d say a proper sample size would be at least 10,000 to 15,000 individuals, ideally with 1,000 per state. That would give us a comprehensive understanding. Other countries are already ahead — Thailand completed their survey in 2009 and has begun a second round. It’s recommended that national sizing data be updated every five years to reflect body changes.
India recently finished their survey of 15,000 people, and they represent billions. So, it’s not about the total population, but the representativeness and saturation of the data.
Now, here’s the real issue: manufacturers are not on board. They don’t want to change their current production templates. Once a national standard is introduced, they would have to redesign everything. That resistance is what’s slowing us down.
That’s why consumers need to play a louder role. They need to start saying things like:
“We’re not getting the right fit.” “We’re buying the wrong sizes.” “We’re wasting clothes due to bad sizing.”
If that message gains enough momentum, only then will manufacturers begin to take this seriously. With the advent of technology in CAD pattern, new basic pattern can be produced automatically according to the new sizing system which is not going to create mess or problems to all manufacturers who had their basic patterns for centuries.
To answer your question directly — yes, we can do it. I know how to create the system. I’ve studied multiple dynamic methods. We have the knowledge. We have the capability. What we lack is the funding. Until we have the right budget and commitment from stakeholders, it won’t happen quickly.
Dr. Saadah: Currently, in clothing, I am the only one actively working in this area. Up until today, no one else is doing this. Anthropometric surveys are very active in Malaysia for ergonomic designs and medical purposes, but not for the garment industry. That’s our challenge.
We now have the technology —scanners and other tools, but the next challenge is getting people to participate. Unless the government supports this and treats it as a national campaign, like how SizeUK and SizeUS did it, it’ll be tough. Over there, it was a large-scale movement to say, “We need to understand you in order to give you good sizing. Otherwise, we can’t.” Here, people are still skeptical about being measured.
When I was in Saudi Arabia, I managed to get a grant to do Size Saudi for 10,000 people, but in the end, we only managed to scan 2,000 due to the same skepticism. It’s not easy to get people to agree to be measured. That’s why I believe using scanners is best. It’s non-invasive, and nobody touches your body. What we’re trying to do now is move toward new technology, perhaps using cameras to estimate body dimensions. This way, there’s no physical contact. We just take a photo, extract a silhouette, and determine the measurements. If we can adopt this method, we might be able to get more people involved.
So, the main challenges are funding and participation.
Dr. Saadah: I’ve measured close to 2,500 individuals to date only for the clothing industry. During my children’s anthropometric study alone, I measured about 2,000 children across different age groups. Beyond that, I’ve continued conducting manual measurements for my ongoing research—including another few hundred adults in recent years. While these measurements were done manually, they form a strong foundation and proof of concept. Once we scale up with scanning technology, we’ll be able to accelerate and expand this work even further. We just need the right support to take it nationwide.
Ts. Dr. Norsaadah Zakaria, Founder – Center of Clothing Technology and Fashion, IBE UiTM, has spent her career bridging anthropometric science and fashion innovation to reshape how Malaysians experience fit. With over 20 years of experience in apparel research and education, she has led national efforts to develop Malaysia’s own standard sizing system, championing data-driven design and inclusive fashion.
As founder of Clozetheltier Academy and a research fellow at Taylor’s University, she continues to push boundaries while advancing sustainability, customization, and talent development across the fashion ecosystem.
