Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

MALAYSIAN workplace is truly unique as faith and morals intertwine with work. This week, we explore some unique cases that challenge our traditional understanding of workplace misconduct. 

We begin by dissecting the illusion of the 'private matter’, (see also: “When sacked over social media posts”,  The Daily Express, 2nd September, 2025: https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read/6357/when-sacked-over-social-media-posts/) revealing how quickly a ‘sin’ or personal indiscretion can become a corporate liability.

We then pivot to a rare intersection where faith is the KPI—a scenario where spiritual devotion is not a personal liberty but a binding professional requirement. 

Finally, we expose the 'noble excuse', where an employee attempts to sanitise workplace malfeasance with the veneer of charity, only to discover that benevolent intentions offer no immunity against consequences of workplace transgressions.

“Sins” – a private matter?

In Malaysia, the distinction between an employee’s private morality or conduct and their professional obligations is frequently obscured by veil of cultural expectation.

 We inhabit a society where conduct such as khalwat (offence of “close proximity” under syariah law) is scrutinised through an unyielding religious lens.

Yet, the Industrial Court remains anchored in the secular bedrock of legal principle. 

The Court does not busy itself with theology; the pertinent enquiry was never "Did the employee commit a sin?" but rather "Did the 'sin' or conduct breach the employment contract?

In Md Tarmizi Mohamad Yusof v. Canon Opto (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2020] 3 ILR 343 (Award No. 695 of 2020) Md Tarmizi had ascended the corporate ladder at Canon Opto over twenty-eight years, eventually securing the exalted position of General Manager. 

Yet, his distinguished career unravelled following a scandalous detention by religious authorities (JAWI) at the Grand Continental Hotel in May 2018. 

He was detained for khalwat, not with a stranger but with Ms. Friska, a female subordinate from within the company. Tarmizi subsequently pleaded guilty in the Syariah High Court, where he was sentenced to a fine and a term of imprisonment, though the custodial sentence was later set aside on appeal.

The scandal came to light through a whistleblower's report, which alleged harassment and revealed the open secret of his relationship with a foreign worker. 

When the company issued a show-cause letter, Tarmizi attempted to shield himself behind the defence of privacy, arguing the incident occurred off-duty and was personal in nature. 

He was dismissed in December 2018 for breaching the Company Handbook regarding criminal convictions. 

In the Industrial Court, Tarmizi argued the conviction was a "private matter," a religious sin only, and that the Syariah Court is not a "Court of Law" as defined in the Company Handbook.

The Court, however, dismissed this argument as "weak" and lacking merit. It ruled that the Syariah Court is indeed a Court of Law with criminal jurisdiction. The "sin" involved a subordinate. 

This created a conflict of interest and destroyed the mutual trust and confidence essential for a General Manager. 

The affair was not truly private; it was known to other employees, leading to complaints from female staff who felt the work environment was unsafe or biased. Consequently, his dismissal was upheld as being with just cause and excuse

In Hasri Hashim & Satu Lagi Kes lwn. Hicom Automotive Manufacturers (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 ILR 604 (Award No. 900 of 2016), Hasri Hashim, a long-serving Assistant Foreman, and his colleague, a female Operator were detained by the Pahang Islamic Religious Affairs Department on suspicion of khalwat at a private residence.

In the town of Pekan, Pahang, a small community where the rhythms of life are dictated as much by the factory whistle as by the call to prayer. 

In a close-knit town, the news travelled swiftly. 

The company viewed the incident as a public stain on its reputation rather than a private indiscretion. 

Following a Domestic Inquiry, both employees were dismissed. 

They argued vigorously that the employer had no right to police their private lives, particularly as they had only been "suspected" and not yet convicted by the Syariah Court.

The Court rejected the "private life" defence, noting that Hicom was a national company operating in a small town where 99pc of the workforce were Malay Muslims. 

Because the arrest occurred in a housing area populated by their own colleagues, the scandal could not be contained. 

The Court ruled that the company had a right to uphold local moral standards, especially when codified in its disciplinary policy, and upheld the dismissal as being with just cause and excuse. 

The Faith KPI- “The Imam Case”

The dispute in Abdulhakim Fakhruddeen v. Masjid Puncak Alam (Award No. 362 of 2024) centres on the dismissal of an Imam who served as the Head of Pengimarahan. 

He was relieved of his duties in May 2021, primarily for failing to attend congregational prayers (Solat Berjemaah) at the mosque during his designated rest days, alongside concerns regarding his administrative performance. 

Abdulhakim argued that the mosque's circulars regarding attendance applied strictly to his rostered duty hours, maintaining that his "off days" afforded him the liberty to pray elsewhere. 

He further justified his absence by citing personal fatigue and the logistical constraints of the Movement Control Order, specifically the need to shield his unvaccinated children from Covid-19 by praying at home.

The Mosque, however, drew attention to its “Service Instructions” and “Standard Operating Procedures” which was acknowledged by the claimant, which unequivocally mandated that Imams must pray at the mosque "even on off days". 

To facilitate this constant presence, the Mosque had provided Abdulhakim with accommodation a mere 800 metres from the sanctuary, alongside a motorcycle and petrol allowance, thereby rendering logistical excuses moot. 

Furthermore, the Mosque highlighted his deteriorating performance, noting scores as low as 34.2pc in January 2021, arguing that retaining him had become untenable. In its decision, the Court ruled that the dismissal was with just cause and excuse. 

The Court held that the office of an Imam extends beyond standard working hours, requiring a constant readiness to serve the religion and lead the community as an exemplar. 

Consequently, the Court rejected Abdulhakim's reliance on secular "off day" arguments, affirming that where clear instructions exist and facilities are provided, spiritual attendance remains a binding professional duty

Noblest of intentions? - “Church Donations”

Some employees may attempt to cloak workplace malfeasance in the guise of benevolence, citing charitable ends to excuse procedural or work transgressions. 

In Pauline a/p Ponnudurai v. RHB Bank Berhad (Award No. 1649 of 2025), Pauline, a Senior Executive with approximately thirteen years of tenure at RHB Bank, served as a key member of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). 

She was tasked with to evaluating vendors for a project designed to upgrade the Bank's CCTV infrastructure from analogue to digital (IP) systems. 

On the 20th of March 2023, Pauline had a meeting with the General Manager (GM) of Panacom at a Starbucks situated within the RHB Centre.

The vendor alleged she requested a "10pc commission", whilst Pauline—though denying the commission—admitted to asking him to "support a charitable project" by purchasing a table contribution for a fundraising dinner in aid of the Tamil Methodist Church, Kuala Lumpur. 

On the 23rd of March 2023, Pauline messaged the GM of Panacom enquiring after the status of the "requested conditions". 

The GM replied that Panacom was unable to fulfil the condition, citing the company's Anti-Bribery & Corruption Policy, which strictly prohibits the provision of "donations" or "gifts" to secure business. 

In the immediate aftermath of the vendor’s refusal to pay or donate, Pauline unilaterally rejected the outcome of the First Tender.

The Court found that, even though the Bank could not strictly prove the "10pc commission" allegation, Pauline's own admission that she had solicited a church donation was sufficient to establish misconduct.

It was ruled that the Claimant’s admission constituted solicitation of gratification, regardless of whether the solicitation was intended for her Church. 

Her conduct following the rejection was deemed particularly damning; the fact that she cancelled a tender wherein Panacom had secured a score of 99pc—immediately after they refused her "donation"—demonstrated that she was acting with vengeance rather than professional judgement. 

Furthermore, the Court dismissed her defence where she submitted the church brochure, describing it vividly as a "red herring covered with thick white sauce". 

Take aways

While the Industrial Court will not act as a "moral police," it will uphold an employer’s right to protect its business reputation and internal harmony. 

Even though, the law respects personal privacy, it draws the line where private conduct destroys the company's reputation or the trust required for the job. 

For employers, the key to winning these cases lies not in proving the "sin," but in proving the damage to the business and the breach of written policy. 

For employees, the lesson is starker: in the eyes of the law, you carry your company's badge even when you are not wearing it.