EVERY job has its trials and tribulations. And working in it, employees may come across certain cultures within the industry that simply don’t make sense.
Take for example a lady who recently went viral for complaining about the retail or food and beverages (F&B) industry which does not allow its workers to sit down even if there is no work to be done.
“Until now I cannot understand the logic behind this. What kind of culture are we following?” she said among other things.
Her rants have since garnered various feedback from netizens who attempted to shed some light into the situation.
According to netizen @blairwen, this was similar to the retail at UK such as Primark, Zara and all the other brands at Oxford Street. “You cannot sit. Those who can sit are the cashier only,” he said.
@fatihwho_ added that she once worked at Shell. Not only is she not allowed to sit when there was no customer, but she had to keep her phone too.
Similarly, @evertayc who worked at MCDonalds was scolded by the manager just when he was about to take a seat.
One netizen pointed out that this was because there was no such thing as the work was completed in the retail or F&B sector.
“There will be work that needs to be done. Even if there are no customers, there will be work to be done well, whether the kitchen or the waiter,” she said.
“What I don’t understand the most is working six days in a week and the pay is bad,” said @Icelattepanas.
On another note, @TokK78Only pointed out that those royal guards at Buckingham Palace had it worse. They were not allowed to move, and were forbidden to make any facial expressions.
Then there was @M1RZ413 suggesting that the management prepare a resting room where the workers could sit on standby while they wait to welcome any customers. But there were problems too.
According to @M1RZ413, the shop will look empty and unmanned, a bad presentation for the business. “To hire people to take turns, it will be costly too,” she lamented.
Perhaps @M1RZ413 may have found the answer to this problem. Away from tradition, employers also believe that seated staff appear lazy or inattentive, creating a negative impression. Standing is seen as promoting readiness and professionalism. — Focus Malaysia
THE Akademi Profesor Malaysia (APM) expresses its deepest sorrow and condolences to the families and friends of the 15 students from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) who tragically lost their lives in a bus accident along the East-West Highway, Banun, Gerik, in the early morning of 9 June 2025.
APM stands in solidarity with UPSI, the academic community, and the public during this heart-wrenching time. May the souls of the departed be showered with divine mercy and placed among the righteous.
APM urges the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into this incident to ensure the safety of students and all road users.
APM also believes that this tragedy should serve as an impetus for deeper and more comprehensive policy and governance discussions regarding the safety standards of Malaysia’s public transportation system, particularly those involving students, workers, and group travel.
Based on past accident records, APM proposes the following eight (8) measures for urgent consideration by the relevant authorities:
Stricter regulation of charter buses & night travel – Enhanced enforcement is needed for charter bus operators and high-risk night journeys.
Risk management by bus operators – This includes assessing driver competency and behaviour, managing vehicle speed, and conducting regular internal safety audits.
Onboard safety technology – Speed monitoring systems, early warning systems, and driver assistance technologies should be strengthened, especially for high-risk routes and nighttime travel.
Mandatory use of seat belts – The use of seat belts on buses, particularly for long-distance journeys, should be made compulsory through legal amendments.
Bus design and structural integrity – All buses must meet the highest safety standards, verified by authorities such as PUSPAKOM, to ensure structural resilience in the event of a collision.
Road conditions and infrastructure – High-risk and accident-prone roads should be upgraded with proper warning systems and continuous maintenance to ensure user safety.
Governance of commercial transportation – A more effective governance system is needed to ensure the proper implementation and enforcement of safety policies for commercial vehicles.
National road safety governance platform – A high-level coordinating body should be re-established to oversee and integrate national road safety policies with measurable and impactful outcomes.
APM also believes that the role of the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS) and related agencies should be further strengthened in formulating more cohesive and effective road safety policies.
APM is prepared to contribute multi-disciplinary expertise in developing long-term solutions to ensure the safety of current and future road users.
Council of the Akademi Profesor Malaysia Putrajaya
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
ON June 6, the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (LHDN) has clarified the stamp duty treatment of employment contracts.
In its official media statement, LHDN outlines how employment contracts will be treated across three key timeframes below, helping employers and HR professionals navigate the complexities of compliance:
Contracts executed before 1 January 2025are exempt from stamp duty and no penalties for late stamping will be imposed.
Contracts executed between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025are subject to stamp duty, but no late stamping penalties apply if stamped within the year.
Contracts executed from 1 January 2026 onwardswill be fully subject to stamp duty and late stamping penalties.
This announcement has raised questions about whether stamping employment contracts is necessary at all. In many jurisdictions, including Malaysia, it is not a common practice to stamp employment agreements.
Admissibility, not validity
Stamp duties are imposed on instruments and “instrument” includes every written document under the Stamp Act 1949. The Act provides that instruments which are not duly stamped are inadmissible as evidence in court.
The Federal Court in Malayan Banking Bhd v Agencies Service Bureau Sdn Bhd & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 198 held that the unstamped document only affects the admissibility of the document in evidence and does not invalidate the document:
“The purpose of the Stamp Ordinance 1949 is to impose and to collect taxes on legal and commercial documents by compelling these documents to be stamped on pain of being inadmissible…. a stamp objection really relates to the safeguarding the government revenue, … unless of course the lack of stamping goes to the root or the validity of the document itself or the case is a revenue dispute.”
Hence, an unstamped document is not automatically void or invalid but rather, it cannot be used as evidence in judicial proceedings until the applicable stamp duty is paid, along with any penalties for late stamping.
Late stamping penalty
(Image: Pexels/energepic.com)
Effective from January 1, 2025 the late stamping penalty rates have been revised as follows:
RM50 or 10% of the deficient duty, whichever is higher, if stamped within 3 months after the time for stamping;
RM100 or 20% of the deficient duty, whichever is higher, if stamped after 3 months from the time for stamping.
From a practical perspective, the monetary impact of late stamping for standard employment contracts is minimal, which is subject to a nominal stamp duty of RM10.
Practical considerations and risks of delayed stamping
Given the relatively low penalties for late stamping, some employers may opt not to stamp employment agreements at the outset, particularly where no immediate dispute is anticipated or where litigation appears unlikely.
Instead, stamping may be deferred until the agreement is required for legal proceedings.
While this may offer short-term administrative convenience or cost savings, such an approach carries several practical and legal risks that should be carefully considered:
Delays in legal proceedings: An unstamped contract cannot be admitted as evidence in court until it has been properly stamped. This can be particularly problematic in urgent applications, such as for injunctions or interim relief, where an inability to rely on the contract may hinder the timely pursuit of legal remedies.
Adverse perception in disputes: Failure to stamp an agreement may give the impression of non-compliance or an attempt to evade statutory obligations, which could affect the employer’s credibility.
Penalties for non-compliance: Executing or signing a document chargeable with duty without the requisite stamping may attract fines. With the Stamp Duty Self-Assessment System set to be implemented on January 1, 2026 LHDNis expected to step up audit and enforcement efforts to ensure compliance.
Despite these considerations, delayed stamping may still be legally viable for some employers, since late stamping penalty is still relatively low and there is a minimal risk of litigation.
Nonetheless, both employers and employees are strongly encouraged to stamp employment contracts promptly to ensure full compliance and to avoid procedural or administrative complications should the agreement later be required in legal proceedings.
Leonard Yeoh is a senior partner and Pua Jun Wen a senior associate with the law firm, Tay & Partners.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
