He Called His Secretary "Sayang" and Lost His Job. The Industrial Court Said That Was Fair.

Every Malaysian office has one. The guy who calls everyone "sayang," "dear," "adik." Usually it gets laughed off. He's just like that lah. Uncle mode. Nobody wants to be the person who makes it weird by objecting.

Here's the thing that case law has quietly settled: the laughing-it-off part is not a defence. And a man who genuinely believed he was being warm — not predatory — lost his job over it, and the Industrial Court agreed he deserved to.

The case is Loganathan Maniam v Murphy Sarawak Oil Co Ltd [2020] 2 ILR 275, Award No. 448 of 2020. It's worth understanding properly, because six years on it's still the case people cite when they want to know where the line sits.

What actually happened

The claimant was a Construction Superintendent with Murphy Sarawak Oil, four years into his time with the company. When his contract was renewed in February 2015, he was posted to the company's contractor, Brooke Dockyard in Kuching, and assigned a secretary — anonymised here as RR.

The whole thing unfolded over about two months.

Within the first few weeks, he was calling her "sayang" — after she had told him to stop. He used it in text messages. He sent her good morning messages, sometimes with quotes or images she found inappropriate.

It wasn't only private. At a progress meeting in early March, with other staff in the room, he announced that RR — sitting right next to him — was his "sayang". She was humiliated; colleagues started teasing her about it. At another meeting that month, he told the others not to disturb her, because he would get angry and jealous.

Then it widened out:

• Physical contact. Before a First Steel Cutting ceremony he asked to take a photo with her and put his arm around her. When she pulled away, he brushed it off by saying his previous secretary liked to hug. He also insisted on a "salam" every morning, holding her hand longer than was comfortable, and once remarked that her hands were rough and he'd buy her lotion.
• Gifts she'd already refused. Perfume, hand cream, a floral phone cover. Flowers on Valentine's Day. She turned the perfume down; he left it on her dashboard anyway.
• Work outside her job scope. Being made to fetch him from the airport instead of a driver. Being told to follow him clothes shopping before a team building dinner — where he wanted to buy her a dress, because he wanted her to be the prettiest one there. When she resisted, he pulled rank: he was her boss, so she should follow orders.

It ended at a team building event at Damai Beach Resort on 30 March. He couldn't find his hotel room, was unhappy with the one he got, phoned her and scolded her, then summoned her to the lobby to continue — telling her she'd made him look like a dog in front of the contractors.

She left the event early the next day. The day after that, she resigned by text message. Her formal resignation letter went to the company a week later; she explained she hadn't been able to send it sooner because she was traumatised.

Asked why she hadn't complained earlier, her answer is the one that appears in file after file: he was her superior, and she was afraid she'd lose her job or be forced out.

Four charges. The company only proved one.

Murphy Oil moved quickly — a show cause letter went out two days after her resignation letter, and a domestic inquiry (DI) followed about a month later.

He faced four charges:

1. Verbal harassment — calling her "sayang" publicly, in front of colleagues, and in electronic messages
2. Physical harassment — putting his arm around her
3. Unwanted attention — offering and giving gifts and messages
4. Abuse of position — making her do work outside her job scope

The DI panel recorded that the conduct left her uncomfortable, upset, stressed, heavy-hearted, scared to work and afraid of what he'd do next.

The company didn't find all four proven. It concluded that charge one alone was enough, relying on its own Code of Conduct, which prohibited unwelcome sexual advances and inappropriate personal conduct. He was dismissed two months later.

He took the company to the Industrial Court, claiming unfair dismissal and arguing he hadn't received natural justice at the DI.

What the Industrial Court decided — and the reasoning that matters

The court had to answer two questions — the same framework that applies to any Malaysian misconduct dismissal, including being fired without a proper reason:

1. Did the misconduct actually happen?
2. If yes, was it serious enough to justify dismissal?

On the facts, his defence collapsed. He didn't deny saying it. Instead he argued he'd used it only three or four times, that he'd meant it innocently because he thought of her as a daughter, and that he had her permission.

The court had close to 40 pages of WhatsApp conversation in evidence, showing the word appearing in nearly every message — alongside witnesses confirming he'd used it publicly. One message asked her to come to the office early; another thanked her, wished her a safe drive, and said he was waiting to see her smiling face. Both addressed her as "sayang".

On the meaning of the word, the court's reasoning is the part worth reading twice. It held that in the Malay-speaking world "sayang" is a term of endearment that generally signals intimacy or a relationship beyond friendship between two people. What existed here was an employment relationship — and as her superior, he had a responsibility to keep it professional.

And on the "she never objected" defence, the court held that even if she hadn't expressly objected, that did not entitle him to address her that way. Her discomfort was obvious from the evidence, and she testified that it embarrassed her.

That's the sentence that does the real work. Absence of protest is not consent. A subordinate who says nothing is not agreeing — she may simply be calculating that objecting to her boss costs more than enduring him.

The gifts were treated the same way: giving a subordinate personal items like perfume and flowers was not acceptable, whatever his stated intentions. The court also found the company had sufficiently proved the physical harassment and the abuse of position.

Dismissal was upheld. He didn't get his job back.

Is that harsh? The fair version of the other side

Worth being honest here, because there's a real argument on the other side and pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone.

The concern is this: "sayang" genuinely is used loosely in Malaysia — by makciks at the pasar, by kedai runcit uncles, by teachers to students. It doesn't always carry romantic weight. If a single word can end a career, plenty of well-meaning older colleagues could be caught out by a norm that shifted under them. And a domestic inquiry is run by the employer, not a court, which raises fair questions about how robust that process really is.

There's substance to that. But read the award as a whole and the picture is narrower than "man sacked for one word". This wasn't a slip. It was sustained use after being told to stop, deployed publicly in a way that humiliated her, combined with unwanted touching, unwanted gifts, and orders that had nothing to do with her job — from someone holding power over her employment.

The word was the charge the company chose to run with. It was never the whole of what happened.

The genuinely useful principle is about context and power, not vocabulary. The same word between two friends of equal standing is a different thing from a superintendent using it on his secretary who has already asked him to stop.

The law has moved a lot since 2020

If you read this case when it came out, the landscape around it has changed substantially. There are now three separate routes, and you should know which is which.

Route 1 — Your employer (Employment Act 1955, Part XVA). Your employer has statutory duties. They must inquire into a sexual harassment complaint, and if they refuse, tell you in writing with reasons within 30 days. Since 1 January 2023 the penalty for an employer who fails to do this rose from RM10,000 to RM50,000 under Section 81F. A new Section 81H also requires employers to conspicuously display a notice raising awareness of sexual harassment at the workplace. If you're unhappy with a refusal to inquire, you can refer it to the Director General of Labour. We have walked through how a workplace complaint actually gets made and handled in more detail.

Route 2 — The Tribunal for Anti-Sexual Harassment (TAGS). This is the big change. The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022 (Act 840) was gazetted in October 2022, with the first provisions in force from 28 March 2023, and TAGS began operating on 8 March 2024.

What makes it genuinely accessible: - Filing fee is RM30, using Form 1 in four copies - Hearings are closed to the public - Lawyers generally aren't involved unless there's a complex question of law - The Tribunal aims to deliver an award within 60 days of the first hearing - It can order an apology (including a published one if the harassment was public), compensation of up to RM250,000, or attendance at a programme - Awards are binding. Non-compliance within 30 days is an offence — punishable by a fine of up to twice the compensation ordered, up to two years' jail, or both

Crucially, TAGS isn't limited to the employment relationship, so it covers harassment that an employer's internal process can't reach.

Read moreHarassed by a stranger, a neighbour, an ex? Here's what you can actually do now

Route 3 — Suing in the civil courts. Since Mohd Ridzwan Abdul Razak v Asmah Hj Mohd Nor [2016], Malaysia recognises a standalone tort of sexual harassment. That case involved a Lembaga Tabung Haji employee harassed by her supervisor, and the RM120,000 in general and aggravated damages awarded to her was upheld all the way up. Slower and more expensive than TAGS — but no RM250,000 ceiling.

Read moreThe Tabung Haji case that made sexual harassment a tort in Malaysia

And if you're a civil servant: in a circular dated 7 April 2023, the Public Services Commission listed calling a colleague "sayang" or "dear" as verbal sexual harassment, with sexting classed as visual harassment. Punishments under the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 range from a warning through to dismissal.

So the Murphy reasoning didn't stay in the Industrial Court. It's now written into the disciplinary rules governing the entire civil service.

What the numbers say about Malaysian workplaces

This isn't a rare problem, and the data has a very specific shape.

Police statistics cited by Women, Family and Community Development Minister Nancy Shukri show sexual harassment cases climbing steadily: 477 in 2022, 522 in 2023, 788 in 2024, and 1,038 in 2025. As of mid-June 2026, TAGS had received about 99 to 100 complaints since it opened, with roughly 80 resolved — most within the 60-day target.

The composition of those complaints is the part employers should read carefully. In an analysis of the first two years of TAGS cases, co-workers made up 50 of 86 complaints — the single largest category, ahead of acquaintances, family members, lecturers, students and strangers. Most complaints are concentrated in the Klang Valley. Most complainants are women and most respondents are men, and complainants tend to be younger than respondents. Physical, verbal and visual harassment are the most commonly reported forms.

Complaints involving male victims are also rising, and TAGS has handled cases with male complainants. Harassment is not gendered in one direction only.

One honest caveat on the numbers: different agencies count differently, and older parliamentary answers cite figures on a different basis (over 1,400 cases a year for 2021–2023). Treat the trend as reliable and the absolute figures as approximate. Also, as advocates consistently point out, rising numbers most likely reflect more people coming forward rather than more harassment happening.

What to actually do

If this is happening to you:

• Keep the evidence. The Murphy case turned on WhatsApp messages. Screenshot everything, back it up somewhere that isn't your work device or work account, and note dates, times and who else was present.
• Say no once, clearly, if it's safe to do so. You are not required to, and failing to object doesn't sink your case — the court was explicit on that. But a documented "please stop" is powerful evidence.
• Complain to your employer in writing. Email, so there's a timestamp. They have a legal duty to inquire, and if they refuse they must tell you why in writing within 30 days.
• If your employer stalls, escalate. Refer it to the Director General of Labour, or go directly to TAGS — RM30 and Form 1. You don't need a lawyer.
• Consider a police report if the conduct involved touching or anything that may fall under Section 354 or 509 of the Penal Code. That's a separate track and doesn't replace the others.
• Don't resign first if you can help it. Resigning weakens your position and complicates any constructive dismissal claim. Get advice before you quit.

If you're an employer or a manager:

• Your Code of Conduct matters. Murphy Oil's zero-tolerance wording is precisely what let the dismissal stand.
• Put up the Section 81H notice. It's a legal requirement, not a poster suggestion.
• Run the domestic inquiry properly. Natural justice was the claimant's main line of attack, and a sloppy DI is how employers lose cases they should win.
• You don't need to prove every charge. One properly proven charge, serious enough to warrant dismissal, is sufficient.

If you're reading this and quietly wondering about your own habits: just stop calling colleagues "sayang" or "dear". That's it. That's the whole fix. No one has ever suffered professionally from addressing people by their names.

The verdict

The uncomfortable truth in this case is that the claimant may well have believed his own explanation. He said he thought of her as a daughter, and he may have meant it.

It didn't matter — and that's the point of the decision. Sexual harassment in Malaysian law is assessed by whether the conduct was unwanted and how it landed on the person receiving it, not by how innocent the sender felt. Between a boss and his secretary, intent is not the test.

RR endured it for two months, said nothing formally, then resigned by text and explained afterwards that she'd been too traumatised to write a proper letter — and afraid that complaining would cost her the job. Six years later, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act means she'd have somewhere to go that costs RM30 and doesn't require her employer's cooperation at all.

That's real progress. Whether the culture in the average Malaysian office has moved as fast as the law is a different question.