It seems like there’s never a dull moment with the infamous Alice Chang, who has become a one-woman whirlwind on Malaysian social media.
With each new headline, she's caught in yet another controversy, "terrorising" one F&B chain to the next — first Auntie Anne's, then Stone Cold Creamery, followed by McDonald's, and then, Nando’s. (KFC, you better watch your six!) Apparently, she has now moved on to other industries, having recently quit a clothing store job over low pay after merely a day.
Her antics, which have ranged from kissing a pretzel dough on video to making claims of sexual harassment, have made her a polarising online figure, leaving employers on edge and netizens divided between outrage and pity. But do her actions carry any real legal consequences? And what can we learn from them?
Kissing Auntie Anne's
... is not exactly a recipe for success — at least not in the world of food safety. The Food Act 1983 and Food Hygiene Regulations 2009 ensure that food safety standards are upheld, and they don’t take too kindly to such antics.
The Food Act 1983 sets out the responsibilities for food business operators, including the need to follow strict hygiene and safety practices when preparing food. Non-compliance with these provisions can result in serious consequences, ranging from hefty fines to imprisonment.
The Food Hygiene Regulations 2009 specifically provides that:
36. Preparing, packing and serving of food (1) A food handler who prepares, packs or serves food for sale shall:- (a) ensure the preparation, packing or serving of food is free from any contamination... (g) not use his breath to open any bag or wrapper intended for use in such preparation, packing and serving...
It's so stringent that a food handler is not even allowed to "use his breath." What more kissing? 💋 Failure to comply with these regulations can leave a food handler — like Alice, in this instance — facing a maximum fine of RM10,000 or up to two years in prison.
Moreover, the responsibility doesn’t end with Alice. Auntie Anne's could also face scrutiny for failing to ensure that their staff were adequately trained to maintain these standards. Given the potential legal fallout, firing her seemed like a kindness.
Lying on Her Résumé
Alice’s attempts to conceal her identity to snag new jobs might be the quickest way to lose them too! Lying or omitting key details on a job application isn’t just frowned upon, it can be grounds for immediate dismissal. It’s considered a breach of the implied trust between the employee and employer.
Of course, while the onus still lies on applicants to present their qualifications honestly, employers are expected to conduct background checks to ensure a candidate’s suitability, reducing the risk of hiring someone who could disrupt the workplace. Failure to do so could result in costly legal battles.
For employers, the case of Khoo Kim Loang v Shock Media Studio Sdn Bhd illustrates the complications that can arise from employee misrepresentation. After the Company noticed troubling behaviour, they investigated and discovered that Khoo had lied on his résumé about previous employment at non-existent companies, leading to his termination.
Yet, despite clear evidence of fraud, the Company still had to defend itself against claims of unfair dismissal by Khoo. Eventually, the Company chose to reach an out of court settlement with Khoo due to the strains of litigation.
To make matters worse, the Court later uncovered Khoo's alarming history of filing multiple unfair dismissal claims against other employers, painting a picture of vexatious behaviour.
This cautionary tale — and Alice's case — emphasises the critical need for thorough background checks by employers to shield them from Employees from Hell.
Claiming Sexual Harassment
Alice's McDonald's chapter ended on an even more contentious note when she went public with allegations of sexual harassment. Taking to social media, she accused her branch manager of harassment and even hinted that she had evidence in the form of CCTV footage.
Sexual harassment is a serious matter, and the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022, which took effect on 28th March 2023, offers a dedicated platform for addressing such complaints through the Tribunal for Anti-Sexual Harassment. This Tribunal provides a formal process to assess the validity of complaints, whether they occur inside or outside the workplace. If the harassment claim is proven, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make the following awards:
the respondent to issue a statement of apology to the complainant;
the respondent to publish a statement of apology to the complainant (if act was carried out in public);
the respondent to pay any compensation or damages not exceeding RM250,000.00; and/or
parties to attend any programme as the Tribunal thinks necessary.
But such claims also open up a legal can of worms if the evidence doesn’t hold up. Enter defamation lawsuits. Governed by the Defamation Act 1957, such lawsuits allow those whose reputations are harmed by false statements to seek compensation.
Truth is a defence against defamation, but if Alice’s accusation is baseless, there's no defence. The branch manager, and even McDonald's, could have a strong case against her for damaging their reputation without basis. But fortunately for Alice, she has taken down those posts.
What’s tricky here is the nature of social media — it’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives people like Alice a platform to voice concerns; on the other, it can amplify accusations that may not be fully substantiated. So, before you rush to judgment based on online chatter, think twice!
Leaking Trade Secrets
Alice's decision to take photos of restricted areas in Nando's quickly found her unemployed once again. This incident, while seemingly less sensational than the others, has actual legal implications.
Many businesses, especially in the competitive F&B industry, consider their back-of-house areas and operational setups confidential. Taking photos in such spaces are not only breaches company policies, but they may be taken as an attempt to disclose confidential information, which is an actionable tort.
As an employee of Nando's, Alice had an obligation of confidentiality. If Nando's can prove that the unauthorised disclosure of their confidential back-of-house set up has brought damage to them, e.g. harmed their competitive standing, they have a claim against Alice. So, before you post anything related to your work online, think twice!
Benefit of the Doubt
With all these legal missteps, it’s easy to paint Alice Chang as a serial troublemaker. But what if there’s more to the story? Many have speculated that she might be struggling with personal challenges, or even dealing with disabilities that affect her behavior.
If that’s true, it changes the narrative from one of simple law-breaking to one of misunderstanding and missed opportunities for help. In legal settings, such factors can sometimes be considered in mitigation, emphasising the importance of empathy and understanding over harsh punishment or retribution.
Her story, while full of chaos and controversy, serves as a reminder that the law is about more than just rules — it's about people. And sometimes, people need more than just a reprimand; they need a chance to learn and grow.
Perhaps, Alice Chang’s journey will take a turn for the better if she finds the right guidance (which her sister and mother are likely not). Until then, as she navigates this rocky path, let’s hope that her next adventure is less about legal battles and more about finding her way.
_JPG.jpg)
Comments