Why Has the Stamp Act 1949 Suddenly Entered the Discussion on Employment Contracts?
Recently, many employers, HR professionals and business leaders have been discussing the stamping of employment contracts.
This is an issue I have been following closely since last year. At the time, I strongly objected to the Government extending its audit focus to employment contracts without first addressing the outdated provisions of the existing law.
I would like to clarify that this article reflects my personal views and experience. It does not represent the views of any organisation, including the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF), HASiL or any other institution.
The Stamp Act 1949 Has Been in Place for Decades
Malaysia’s Stamp Act 1949 was, as its name suggests, enacted in 1949. At that time, Malaysia had not yet achieved independence and the country was still under British colonial rule.
Even then, however, the lawmakers had considered an important issue: whether employment documents involving small employers and low-income employees should be given some form of relief.
Accordingly, under the old wording of First Schedule Item 4, an employment contract involving a monthly salary of not more than RM300 was subject to an exemption arrangement.
The problem is that, after all these years, the RM300 amount has become completely disconnected from reality.
When time, inflation, the cost of living and prevailing wage levels are taken into account, RM300 is no longer a reasonable exemption threshold.
My view has always been straightforward: if the Government considers the threshold outdated, the proper approach should be to amend the outdated Stamp Act 1949 first, rather than introducing a stamp duty audit framework and then shifting the compliance pressure onto employers.
In other words, the issue is not necessarily that the Government intends to impose stamp duty. The concern is that the law is outdated, the threshold has not kept pace with the times, and the enforcement approach should be more consistent with present-day realities.
Why Did I Oppose Employment Contract Stamping Last Year?
Last year, when the Government began strengthening its stamp duty audit efforts and placed employment contracts within its focus, I personally expressed strong opposition.
This was not because I believed employers should be exempt from complying with the law, nor because I opposed reasonable tax compliance. Rather, we were dealing with a law enacted in 1949.
Before strengthening enforcement, the Government should have addressed several questions:
- Has the original RM300 exemption amount become completely disconnected from current conditions?
- Are today’s minimum wage, prevailing wage levels and cost of living far removed from the economic circumstances of 1949?
- If the Government genuinely considers employment contracts to be subject to stamp duty, why not first amend the law through Parliament so that the threshold, definitions and exemption conditions are clearly set out?
- Why not first conduct meaningful consultations with employer organisations, HR professionals, accountants, tax agents and the business community before implementing a comprehensive audit?
At the time, I believed these questions deserved direct answers.
My Experience Attending an MEF and HASiL Course Last Year
Last year, I also attended a tax course jointly organised by the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) and the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia. During the course, I raised my views on the matter.
My position was that, if the Government considered employment contracts subject to stamping, it should first amend the Stamp Act 1949 and increase the outdated RM300 amount, rather than directly strengthening audits and enforcement based on the old law.
However, the MEF CEO, who represented employers at the time, expressed a view to the effect that:
“This is the Government’s decision. There is not much we can do.”
Of course, from the perspective of an organisation involved in implementation, there may have been practical considerations behind that position.
Nevertheless, from the perspective of employers and the business community, I felt a deep sense of helplessness when I heard those words.
What left an even stronger impression on me was that some employers appeared satisfied with the arrangement proposed by HASiL because HASiL indicated that employers who completed stamping by 31 December 2025 could obtain remission of late-stamping penalties.
From a corporate governance perspective, however, we should not be satisfied merely because “if we act quickly now, we can temporarily avoid the penalty”.
We should also ask: Why should businesses have to face this compliance pressure in the first place? Is the threshold reasonable? Has the law failed to keep pace with the times?
Does Every Employment-Related Document Require Stamping?
Last year, I also heard statements at seminars and courses held nationwide suggesting that every document connected with an employment relationship might require stamping.
This caused considerable concern among many companies.
An employee’s documentation may include an offer letter, employment agreement, employee handbook, IT policy, benefits explanation, training bond, share or equity award documents, confidentiality agreement and restraint-of-trade provisions, among others.
If every document relating to an employee were treated as a separate taxable instrument, the issue would not simply be the RM10 payable for each document. The entire HR documentation system might need to be reviewed.
However, it is important to clarify that not every document relating to employees will necessarily receive the same stamp duty treatment.
The final position will depend on the contents of the document, the legal relationship involved, whether it constitutes a separate agreement, whether it creates an independent monetary obligation, and the HASiL guidelines applicable at the relevant time.
What Has Changed?
On 7 August 2026, HASiL issued new operational guidance.
Under the latest guidance, an employment contract involving monthly remuneration of not more than RM3,000 falls within an exempt category and generally does not require stamping or endorsement.
For an employment contract involving monthly remuneration above RM3,000, the principal or master contract containing the employment terms between the employer and employee is generally the document that requires stamping and endorsement.
Ordinary ancillary documents within the same employment relationship generally do not require separate stamping and endorsement.
From one perspective, this RM3,000 operational arrangement supports the concern I raised last year: the original RM300 threshold is indeed no longer consistent with present-day realities.
Nevertheless, I continue to believe that, in the long term, the most reliable approach is to formally amend the law, rather than relying indefinitely on media statements, administrative exemptions, special programmes or temporary arrangements to resolve a structural legal issue.
The law should be clear, stable and predictable.
Employers should not have to speculate every year:
- Which documents require stamping this year?
- Which remuneration threshold applies?
- Will an old contract attract a penalty?
- Is an appendix a separate instrument?
- Would RM4,000 be a more reasonable threshold?
Would RM4,000 Be a More Appropriate Threshold?
In my personal view, the Government could consider increasing the employment contract stamping threshold to RM4,000 or even higher.
Why RM4,000?
Malaysia’s labour laws already contain an RM4,000 reference threshold in relation to statutory payment entitlements, including overtime.
According to the official information provided by the Jabatan Tenaga Kerja Semenanjung Malaysia (JTKSM), employees earning more than RM4,000 per month, other than manual employees, generally do not have certain statutory rights to claim payment for overtime, work on rest days and work on public holidays.
Of course, this RM4,000 threshold applies in the context of labour law. It does not mean that every employee earning more than RM4,000 is unable to receive overtime payment. A company may still provide such benefits through the employment contract, company policy or collective agreement.
My proposal of RM4,000 simply reflects the view that the Government could consider the existing labour law threshold so that different legal regimes are better aligned, rather than having each law prescribe a completely different figure.
Whether the final threshold is RM3,000, RM4,000 or a higher amount, the key point is that it must reflect current economic realities and should be determined through public consultation and formal legislative amendment.
The Fixed RM10 Duty Is Not the Main Problem
For a principal employment contract, the applicable stamp duty is generally the fixed amount of RM10 under First Schedule Item 4.
The RM10 amount itself may not be substantial.
What genuinely concerns businesses are questions such as:
- Does the document constitute an employment contract?
- Is an offer letter already a binding employment contract?
- How should short-term, part-time and temporary employees, as well as interns, be treated?
- Does every renewal require separate stamping?
- Do an employee handbook, IT policy, training bond or benefits letter constitute separate instruments?
- What is the applicable penalty for late stamping?
- Who is legally responsible for paying the duty—the employer or the employee?
Without clear statutory wording and consistent guidance, these questions can turn what appears to be a simple RM10 obligation into a significant compliance risk for businesses.
Under the general rules currently issued by HASiL, an instrument should generally be submitted for stamping within 30 days after it is signed in Malaysia. If it is signed outside Malaysia, it should generally be stamped within 30 days after it is first received in Malaysia.
For late stamping from 1 January 2025, the general penalties are:
- If the instrument is stamped within three months after the due date, the penalty is RM50 or 10% of the deficient duty, whichever is higher; and
- If it is stamped more than three months after the due date, the penalty is RM100 or 20% of the deficient duty, whichever is higher.
Therefore, for a contract that originally required only RM10 in stamp duty, late stamping may result not merely in an additional RM1 or RM2, but in a minimum fixed penalty of RM50 or RM100.
The 2025 Transitional Arrangement and PKPS 2026
For employment contracts completed before 1 January 2025, HASiL’s media statement issued in June 2025 provided an exemption from stamp duty and remission of late-stamping penalties.
For contracts completed in 2025, the original arrangement was that the contracts might still be subject to stamp duty, but remission of late-stamping penalties could be obtained if stamping was completed by 31 December 2025.
Subsequently, on 26 June 2026, HASiL announced that PKPS Duti Setem 2026 had been extended to 31 December 2026.
Eligible instruments completed between 2023 and 2025 may qualify for an automatic waiver or application for remission of late-stamping penalties if stamping and payment are completed during 2026.
However, it is important to note that these arrangements primarily address late-stamping penalties. They do not mean that the underlying stamp duty payable on every instrument is automatically cancelled. Cases involving fraud are also outside the scope of the programme.
The Malayan Banking Case: Can Late Stamping Be Accepted?
I would like to highlight an important Federal Court case:
Malayan Banking Bhd v Agencies Service Bureau Sdn Bhd & Ors [1981] 1 MLRA
The case involved a guarantee.
The document appeared to be dated 17 April 1974. However, based on the evidence, the Court found that it had in fact been signed on 16 November 1973.
The document was stamped only later, and the late-stamping penalty payable at the time had not been paid.
The matter was eventually appealed to the Federal Court.
The Federal Court explained that, in the case of an ordinary instrument, failure to stamp it properly generally affects whether it may be admitted as evidence in court. It does not automatically render the instrument invalid or remove its legal binding effect.
The Court may impound the instrument in accordance with the relevant procedure and require payment of the applicable stamp duty and penalty. Once those procedures have been completed, the instrument may be admitted as evidence.
In the end, the guarantee in that case was ordered to undergo the relevant process, including payment of the penalty and stamping, and the matter was dealt with accordingly.
This is why it is important to distinguish between two separate issues:
- Whether the contract is legally valid; and
- Whether the contract may be directly used as evidence in court before it has been properly stamped.
These two issues are not entirely the same.
The Malayan Banking case does not mean that all contracts may remain unstamped, nor does it mean that delayed stamping will never create a problem.
It indicates that, for an ordinary instrument, failure to stamp it does not necessarily render the contract invalid from the outset. Subject to the relevant legal procedures and the payment of the required stamp duty and penalty, the Court may accept the instrument.
Accordingly, the view that “late stamping can be accepted” has some basis in case law in the context of evidentiary procedure for certain ordinary instruments. However, it should not be interpreted to mean that stamp duty is unimportant or that every document may be stamped at any time without limitation.
It should also be remembered that Malayan Banking was decided in 1981. The RM25 penalty referred to in that judgment was the amount applicable at that time, not the current standard.
The relevant rules today should be the RM50/RM100 and 10%/20% late-stamping penalties published by HASiL from 2025 onwards, unless a new exemption or PKPS arrangement applies.
Conclusion
I support reasonable, clear and fair tax compliance.
However, I do not believe that the Government should rely on an outdated law enacted in 1949, leave the RM300 threshold unchanged for decades, suddenly intensify audits and then require businesses to bear all the compliance risks associated with historical documents.
If the Government considers employment contracts subject to stamping, it should:
- Formally amend the Stamp Act;
- Increase the exemption threshold to a reasonable level;
- Clearly define employment contracts, service contracts, principal contracts and ancillary documents;
- Provide clear treatment for offer letters, part-time employment, internships, renewals, training agreements and employee policies;
- Give businesses a reasonable transition period; and
- Conduct meaningful consultation before implementing audits, rather than simply telling businesses: “This is the Government’s decision.”
In my personal view, RM3,000 represents progress, but it should still be implemented through formal legislative amendment so that the system becomes more stable.
A threshold of RM4,000 or higher also deserves serious consideration by the Government.
The purpose of the law should not merely be to make businesses afraid of penalties. It should enable businesses to understand what is required of them and to comply in a manner that is reasonable, clear and affordable.
This article reflects my personal views and compilation of information. It does not constitute legal or tax advice in relation to any specific employer, employee or contract.
Specific contracts should continue to be assessed based on the full text of the contract, the date of signing, the definition of remuneration, the applicable exemptions and the latest written guidance issued by HASiL.
马来西亚雇佣合约印花税：1949年法令为何需要更新
为什么1949年的印花税法令，今天突然成为雇佣合约讨论的一部分？
最近，许多雇主、HR 专业人士和企业负责人都在讨论雇佣合约的印花税盖印问题。
其实，我从去年开始就一直密切关注这项课题。当时，我也曾强烈反对政府在没有先处理现有陈旧法令的情况下，突然把审计重点扩大至雇佣合约。
我想先说明，本文是我个人意见与经历的分享，不代表任何组织，包括 Malaysia Employers Federation（MEF）、HASiL 或其他机构的立场。
1949年的《印花税法令》一直存在
马来西亚《印花税法令1949》（Stamp Act 1949），顾名思义，是在1949年制定的。当时，马来西亚尚未独立，国家仍处于英国殖民统治之下。
然而，即使在那个年代，立法者也已经考虑到一个重要问题：涉及小雇主和低收入雇员的雇佣文件，是否应该获得某种程度的豁免或宽免。
因此，根据 First Schedule Item 4 的旧有文字，月薪不超过 RM300 的雇佣合约，原本享有豁免安排。
问题是，经过这么多年，RM300 这个金额已经完全脱离现实。
如果把时间、通货膨胀、生活成本和现行工资水平纳入考虑，RM300 早已不再是一个合理的豁免门槛。
我的看法一直很简单：如果政府认为这个门槛已经不合时宜，正确的做法应该是先修订陈旧的1949年《印花税法令》，而不是先推出印花税审计框架，再把合规压力转移到雇主身上。
换句话说，问题不一定在于政府要征收印花税，而在于法令已经老旧，门槛却没有随着时代更新，执行方式也应该更加符合今天的现实情况。
去年我为什么反对雇佣合约盖印？
去年，当政府开始加强印花税审计力度，并把雇佣合约纳入重点范围时，我个人是强烈反对的。
这并不是因为我认为雇主可以不遵守法律，也不是因为我反对合理的税务合规，而是因为我们面对的是一部1949年制定的法令。
政府在加强执法之前，应该先正面处理几个问题：
一，原本 RM300 的豁免金额是否已经完全脱离现实？
二，今天的最低工资、一般工资水平和生活成本，是否已经远远超过1949年的经济环境？
三，如果政府确实认为雇佣合约应该受到印花税管制，为什么不是先通过国会修法，把门槛、定义和豁免条件清楚列明？
四，为什么不是先与雇主组织、HR 专业人士、会计师、税务代理和企业界进行充分而有意义的咨询，再全面推行审计？
这些问题，我当时都认为应该获得直接的回答。
去年参加 MEF 与 HASiL 课程时的经历
去年，我也参加了由 Malaysia Employers Federation（MEF）与税收局联合举办的税务课程，并在课程中提出了自己的观点。
我当时的立场是：如果政府认为雇佣合约需要盖印，就应该先修订1949年的法令，提高 RM300 这个已经不符合时代的金额，而不是直接依据旧法令加强审计和执法。
可是，当时代表雇主的 MEF CEO 表示，大意是：
“这是政府的决定。我们也没有太多办法。”
当然，站在参与执行的机构角度，他们可能有自己的现实考量。
但站在雇主和企业界的角度，当我听到这句话时，确实感到非常无奈。
更让我印象深刻的是，当时一些雇主似乎还对 HASiL 所提出的安排感到满意，因为 HASiL 表示，只要在2025年12月31日之前完成盖印，就可以获得迟延罚款的 remission，也就是罚款宽免。
然而，从企业治理角度来看，我们不应该只满足于“现在赶快处理，就可以暂时避免罚款”。
我们更应该问：为什么企业本来就需要面对这样的合规压力？这个门槛是否合理？法律是否已经跟不上时代？
是否所有与雇佣有关的文件都需要盖印？
去年，我也在全国各地举办的讲座和课程中听到这样的说法：凡是与雇佣关系有关的文件，都可能需要盖印。
这让许多公司感到非常紧张。
因为一份员工文件可能包括 Offer Letter、Employment Agreement、Employee Handbook、IT Policy、Benefit Explanation、Training Bond、股权奖励文件、保密协议及竞业限制条款等。
如果每一份与员工有关的文件都被视为独立的应税文书，企业面对的就不只是每份 RM10 的问题，整个 HR 文件系统都可能需要重新检视。
不过，这里必须说明，并不是所有标题上与员工有关的文件，都必然受到相同的印花税处理。
最终仍然要视乎文件内容、涉及的法律关系、文件是否构成独立协议、是否产生独立的金钱义务，以及相关时期适用的 HASiL 指引。
后来有什么变化？
2026年8月7日，HASiL 发布了新的操作性说明。
根据最新说明，月度薪酬不超过 RM3,000 的雇佣合约，属于豁免类别，通常不需要盖印，也不需要办理 endorsement。
至于月度薪酬超过 RM3,000 的雇佣合约，主要是包含雇主与雇员之间雇佣条款的 principal 或 master contract 需要盖印和办理 endorsement。
在同一雇佣关系下的普通附属文件，一般不需要另外盖印和办理 endorsement。
从某个角度来看，这项 RM3,000 的操作性安排，正好说明我去年提出的问题并不是没有道理：原本 RM300 的门槛，确实已经不符合今天的现实。
不过，我仍然认为，长远来说，最稳妥的方式还是正式修订法律，而不是长期依赖媒体声明、行政豁免、特别计划或临时性安排来解决制度上的问题。
法律应该清楚、稳定并且具有可预测性。
雇主不应该每年都要猜测：
- 今年到底哪一份文件需要盖印？
- 哪一个薪酬门槛适用？
- 旧合约会不会面对罚款？
- 附录是不是独立文书？
- RM4,000 会不会是更合理的门槛？
RM4,000 会不会是更合理的门槛？
我个人认为，政府可以考虑把雇佣合约的盖印门槛提高到 RM4,000，甚至更高。
为什么是 RM4,000？
因为马来西亚劳工法在加班等法定付款资格方面，已经存在一个 RM4,000 的参考门槛。
根据半岛马来西亚劳工局（JTKSM）的官方说明，月薪超过 RM4,000 的员工，一般上不包括手工劳动者，并不享有某些关于加班、休息日和公共假日工作的法定索赔资格。
当然，这个 RM4,000 是劳工法上的门槛，并不代表所有月薪超过 RM4,000 的员工都不能获得加班费。公司仍然可以通过雇佣合约、公司政策或集体协议，给予员工相关待遇。
我提出 RM4,000，只是认为政府可以参考现有劳工法门槛，让不同法律制度之间有更好的协调，而不是每一部法令各自设定完全不同的数字。
无论最后的门槛是 RM3,000、RM4,000，还是更高，重点是这个金额必须符合今天的经济现实，并且应该经过公开咨询和正式修法来确定。
固定 RM10 的印花税并不是最大的问题
对于属于雇佣合约的主合同，通常是 First Schedule Item 4 下的固定印花税 RM10。
RM10 本身或许并不高。
真正让企业担心的，往往是以下问题：
- 这份文件是否属于雇佣合约？
- Offer Letter 是否已经构成具有约束力的雇佣合约？
- 短期、兼职、临时员工和实习生是否需要处理？
- 每一次续约是否都需要重新处理？
- Employee Handbook、IT Policy、Training Bond 和 Benefit Letter 是否属于独立文书？
- 如果迟延处理，适用的罚款是多少？
- 法律上负责缴付印花税的人是谁，是雇主还是员工？
如果没有清楚的法律文字和统一指引，这些问题就会把原本看似简单的 RM10，变成企业很大的合规风险。
根据 HASiL 目前公布的一般规则，文书通常应在马来西亚签署后30天内提交盖印。如果是在海外签署，则通常应在文书首次收到马来西亚后的30天内处理。
对于自2025年1月1日起发生的迟延盖印，一般迟延罚款为：
- 在到期日后3个月内处理，罚款为 RM50 或少缴税额的10%，取其较高者；以及
- 超过3个月后才处理，罚款为 RM100 或少缴税额的20%，取其较高者。
因此，对于原本只需要缴付 RM10 印花税的合约，迟延处理后可能不只是多缴 RM1 或 RM2，而是至少面对 RM50 或 RM100 的固定罚款。
2025年的过渡安排与2026年的 PKPS
对于在2025年1月1日以前完成的雇佣合约，HASiL 在2025年6月发布的媒体声明中给予印花税豁免及迟延罚款宽免。
对于在2025年完成的合约，原本的安排是：合约本身可能仍然需要缴付印花税，但如果在2025年12月31日之前完成盖印，就可以获得迟延罚款宽免。
后来，HASiL 于2026年6月26日宣布，PKPS Duti Setem 2026 延长至2026年12月31日。
符合条件的2023年至2025年期间完成的文书，如果在2026年内完成盖印和付款，可以申请或自动获得迟延罚款豁免。
不过，大家必须注意，这类安排主要是处理迟延罚款，并不代表所有原本应缴的印花税本金都会自动取消。同时，涉及 fraud 的情况也不在计划范围内。
Malayan Banking 案：后补印花税票可以被接受吗？
我想特别提到一个重要的 Federal Court 案件：
Malayan Banking Bhd v Agencies Service Bureau Sdn Bhd & Ors [1981] 1 MLRA
这宗案件涉及一份 guarantee。
该文件表面上的日期是1974年4月17日，但法院根据证据认定，它实际上是在1973年11月16日签署的。
文件后来才盖印，而且当时应付的迟延罚款还没有缴付。
案件最终上诉至 Federal Court。
Federal Court 说明，对于一般文书而言，未妥善盖印通常首先影响的是该文书能否在法庭上作为证据被接纳，并不代表该文书自动无效，或自动失去法律约束力。
法院可以根据相关程序扣押（impound）该文书，并要求缴付应有的印花税和罚款。完成这些程序后，该文书可以被接纳为证据。
最终，该案中的 guarantee 被命令按照相关程序补缴罚款并送交盖印，案件也因此获得处理。
这就是为什么我们必须区分两件事：
一，合同有没有法律效力；以及
二，在合同尚未妥善盖印之前，能不能直接作为法庭证据使用。
这两者并不完全相同。
Malayan Banking 这个案件并不是说以后所有合同都可以不盖印，也不是说迟延多久都不会有问题。
它说明的是，对于一般文书而言，未盖印通常不一定会让合同从一开始就无效。在符合法律程序、补缴所需印花税和罚款之后，法院可以接受该文书。
因此，“后补印花税票可以被接受”这个说法，在某些一般文书的证据程序上确实有判例基础。但不能因此得出“印花税不重要”或“所有文件都可以无限期后补”的结论。
同时也必须记得，Malayan Banking 是1981年的案件。当时判决中提到的 RM25 罚款，是当时适用的金额，并不是今天的标准。
现在应该参考 HASiL 自2025年起公布的 RM50/RM100 以及10%/20%迟延罚款规则，除非有新的豁免或 PKPS 安排适用。
总结
我支持合理、清楚和公平的税务合规。
但我不认为，政府可以在多年没有更新 RM300 门槛的情况下，拿着一部1949年的旧法令突然全面加强审计，然后要求企业承担所有历史文件所带来的合规风险。
如果政府认为雇佣合约需要盖印，就应该：
一，正式修订《印花税法令》；
二，合理提高豁免门槛；
三，清楚定义雇佣合约、service contract、principal contract 和 ancillary document；
四，明确处理 Offer Letter、兼职、实习、续约、培训协议和员工政策；
五，给予企业合理的过渡期；以及
六，在推行审计之前进行真正有意义的咨询，而不是只告诉企业：“这是政府的决定。”
我个人认为，RM3,000 是一个进步，但仍然应该通过正式修法，让整个制度更加稳定。
RM4,000 或更高的门槛，也值得政府认真研究。
法律的目的不应该只是让企业害怕被罚款。法律更应该让企业知道自己需要做什么，并且能够以合理、清楚和可负担的方式完成合规要求。
本文是个人意见及资料整理，不构成针对任何雇主、员工或具体合约的法律或税务意见。
具体合约仍应以合约全文、签署日期、薪酬定义、适用豁免以及 HASiL 最新书面指引为准。
