4. Structural Patterns Identified Casework spanning multiple employers has revealed 15 categories of recurring practice, together with supplementary contextual notes. These are presented as patterns observed across multiple independent cases, and are not intended to characterize any single company. 4.1 Coercive Resignation Penalties and Notice-Period Penalties Contractual penalty clauses — ranging in documented cases from approximately RM7,859 to RM28,000 — are used to discourage resignation. In one messaging-app exchange, a manager told a worker who had given notice that breaching the two-month notice period would trigger an RM15,000 fine plus an amount equal to two months’ salary, and that non-payment would be reported to the Malaysian Immigration Department and result in a ban on future entry to and exit from Malaysia. In another case, the same “up to RM10,000” contractual bond clause was invoked by the employer as disciplinary leverage during an investigation, before any misconduct had been established. A signed employment contract obtained from one employer shows an equivalent structure formalized at the contract level. It includes a minimum of three months’ written notice of resignation, forfeiture of salary and benefits for any unserved notice period, liquidated damages for each unserved notice day, a separate service-bond clause recovering Employment Pass, travel, initial accommodation, and salary-advance costs upon resignation within 12 months, and a further RM40,000 liquidated-damages clause for breach of confidentiality or non-solicitation provisions. In yet another documented case, the employer issued an itemized demand of RM7,859.40 upon resignation, comprising MDEC and visa fees (RM2,695), a “recruitment cost” (RM1,800), training (RM1,000), airfare (RM1,034.40), and accommodation (RM1,330). The inclusion of a “recruitment cost” may conflict with the internationally recognized Employer Pays Principle, under which recruitment costs are to be borne by the employer. In this case, the employer’s HR representative initially stated that submitting a medical certificate would qualify the worker for a full penalty waiver, but later reduced the penalty by only 50%, telling the unwell worker, “If it were up to me, I’d charge you 100%.” When the worker mentioned consulting a lawyer, the HR representative abruptly claimed to have no authority to decide the penalty and shifted responsibility to the team leader and operations manager — a stance plainly at odds with their earlier explanation. In yet another case, the wording of the resignation penalty clause confirmed that the RM10,000 figure was not a fixed fine but a reimbursement capped at the employer’s actual costs (Employment Pass fees, relocation, and onboarding expenses). In such cases, the burden of proof lies with the employer, who must itemize actual costs, including receipts — meaning the amount that is actually enforceable may be substantially lower than the figure presented to the worker. 4.2 Rejection of Medical Certificates and Increased Scrutiny Valid medical certificates (MCs) and fitness-to-work certificates were rejected, delayed, or disputed in multiple cases. In one case, a clinic-issued unfit-for-work certificate was rejected outright, and the worker was required to submit a hospital-issued certificate within a short deadline tied to a financial penalty. In another documented exchange, an employer suggested that future medical leave might not be approved — this came immediately after the worker raised concerns about an unrelated salary discrepancy, despite a medical certificate having already been submitted. 4.3 Wage Non-Payment and Tax Clearance Delays Tied to Visa Dependence Two related tactics were repeatedly observed: non-payment of final salary after resignation (with repeated inquiries met only with “it’s still being processed”), and the non-issuance of an LHDN tax clearance letter (CP621), which employers cite as grounds for withholding final salary, bonuses, and statutory contributions for more than three months. Yet another documented case showed that tax clearance delays are not always attributable to the employer. At an LHDN counter, a worker who met the statutory residency requirement was instructed to file a non-resident form. As a result, even after a correct resident filing was separately submitted, the non-resident flag was not corrected, producing an erroneous additional tax assessment instead of a refund. The responsible LHDN officer acknowledged the error in writing, and the worker’s former employer independently submitted documentation to LHDN supporting the worker’s residency status, yet the classification remained uncorrected more than five months later. In July 2026, this case reached a full resolution: following direct, in-person representative negotiation at the LHDN counter in late June 2026, the misclassification was corrected within days — the residency status was amended on 30 June, the erroneous assessment was Sukimare Consulting — White Paper (July 2026) Page 6