CAN EMPLOYER RETAIN THEIR EMPLOYEE’S PASSPORT?

 Authored by Radhia Ghazali

In Malaysia, the question of whether employers can hold on to their workers’ passports has become a major legal and human rights issue. For years, it was considered normal for employers; especially in sectors like construction, domestic work, and plantations to keep workers’ passports “for safekeeping.” But the law is now clear: this practice is illegal. Under Section 12(1)(f) of the Passports Act 1966, no one is allowed to keep another person’s passport unless they have lawful authority to do so. The law only allows very limited exceptions, such as when the passport is needed for visa renewal or required by authorities for an investigation. Otherwise, taking and holding an employee’s passport is a criminal offence. Those found guilty can face fines of up to RM10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.

The purpose of this law is simple: a passport is a person’s identity and freedom of movement. When an employer takes that away, even under the excuse of “keeping it safe,” the worker loses control over their own life. Many migrant workers have said that when their passports are held by their employers, they feel trapped, anxious, and powerless. They cannot leave their accommodation, visit family, or look for new work. Some fear that if they ask for their passport back, they will be punished or sent home. Lawyers and human rights advocates have pointed out that this kind of control over a worker’s freedom is not just unethical—it’s one of the main indicators of forced labour as defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO).

To reinforce this protection, Malaysian regulations for hiring foreign workers now include an Employer’s Undertaking that clearly prohibits employers from keeping their workers’ passports. Employers who violate this can face administrative action, including fines or losing their licence to hire foreign workers. The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Immigration Department of Malaysia have repeatedly reminded employers that passports must remain in the worker’s possession at all times. If an employer needs a passport temporarily for an official purpose, it must be returned immediately after use. Employers are also encouraged to use insurance policies or security bonds if they need assurance that their workers will stay, rather than taking their passports as “collateral.”

Despite these clear rules, enforcement is still inconsistent. Many migrant workers, especially those from Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Nepal, still have their passports taken away as soon as they arrive in Malaysia. Some do not even realize that this is illegal, while others stay silent because they fear losing their job or being deported. It is also difficult for workers to report such violations, as the process often involves multiple government departments and language barriers. In practice, few employers have been prosecuted, which means the problem persists in many industries.

The Malaysian government has started to respond more actively in recent years, especially after growing international attention to forced labour. Reports from the U.S. Department of Labor, the ILO, and other global organizations have placed Malaysia under pressure to improve its labour practices. Many Malaysian companies, particularly in the palm oil, manufacturing, and electronics sectors are now taking steps to return passports to workers and implement clear policies against retention. International buyers and business partners are also demanding compliance, linking these reforms to Malaysia’s reputation as a fair and lawful trading partner. 

The conversation around this issue is no longer just about criminal penalties. More workers are now aware that they can pursue civil claims against employers for distress or unlawful restriction of movement. In severe cases, passport confiscation can even amount to human trafficking under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, particularly if the employer uses it as a tool to threaten or control the worker. Legal experts are beginning to call for stronger integration of these protections within labour laws such as the Employment Act 1955, so that cases can be handled through labour tribunals rather than only through criminal courts.

Looking ahead, Malaysia is also moving toward more digital systems for immigration and work permits. While this modernization is welcome, it raises new questions about how to ensure that workers continue to have access to and control over their own identification. The principle remains the same: every worker must have ownership of their identity documents, whether physical or digital.

In essence, the ban on passport retention is about more than legal compliance—it’s about dignity and fairness. A worker’s passport represents their independence and humanity. When employers respect this right, they not only comply with the law but also help create a more ethical and trustworthy labour environment. Upholding this standard is key to ensuring that Malaysia’s workplaces are built on respect, not control.

Kindly note that this legal article does not, and is not intended to, constitute formal legal advice by the Firm, instead all information, content and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. If readers require further clarification or legal advice, please email office@kevinwuassociates.com