A resignation last week put a question in front of every senior leader in Singapore… how much of your private life still belongs to you once you reach the top?
Mr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, the 58-year-old Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, resigned from all his political positions after the Prime Minister’s Office looked into his interactions with a female member of the public.
The police found no criminal offence. But the law doesn’t answer the second question, which is whether his conduct met the standard expected of a political office-holder. Faishal said it didn’t and honourably resigned, and PM Lawrence Wong accepted. The PMO statement is here.
I think that was the right call.
But before anyone assumes I want companies auditing what their staff do on a Saturday night… I don’t.
The truth is that the higher your position is, the more ‘Trust’ rides on it… and that’s only fair because the deliverables (and salary) commensurates with that.
But what isn’t fair is when “greater accountability” creeps into the company owning your entire private life.
So where’s the line? Three stories, then a test.
1. When A Private Opinion Borrows The Company’s Brand
Years ago I sat on the board of a national health charity. At the peak of the public debate over HPV vaccination, our CEO wrote to the press opposing the vaccine on personal grounds.
Now, he was entitled to that belief… Nobody surrenders their faith when they sign an employment contract… but the problem was the delivery:
Unfortunately, the CEO sent the letter via the organisation’s email server, while running a charity whose purpose included cancer prevention. His personal view was now indistinguishable from the charity’s position, and the public could reasonably assume the CEO spoke for the organisation he led. The Board concluded it was a bad decision.
You can’t borrow your employer’s microphone and then claim you were speaking privately. His belief was personal…but his broadcast channel wasn’t.
2. When “Protecting The Brand” Is Just Disguised Snobbery
Now for the opposite side of the coin.
I know of a lawyer who helped his wife at her BBQ Chicken stall at a night market on weekends. It was a hobby of hers and he took it as a way to spend time with her after work.
However, some partners at his firm were unhappy seeing one of their lawyers serving chicken in a grubby, food-stained T-shirt as they felt it cheapened their law-firm’s brand… and they insisted that he ‘cease and desist’ immediately.
He argued (as lawyers often do) that what he did on his free time was none of their business and they had a big row over it.
My thoughts? Well, the man was doing honest, lawful work and wasn’t soliciting clients beside the charcoal grill or printing the firm’s logo on paper plates, so there was no conflict or deception at all. I think his senior partners were just being snobby.
There’s a point where a company deciding how you spend your after-hours becomes an ‘Over-reach’ situation… and what happens on that ‘Private Side’ of an employee’s life is no longer under the control of the company.
3. When Someone Photographs You Behaving Badly After Work
Now the messy middle…and a rather funny anecdote.
There’s a reason why, after a long day at work and I’m on the train on the way home, I NEVER sit on the ‘Priority’ seats… call it paranoia, but I’m terrified of being photographed and getting tagged as “CEO of Career Agility International selfishly hogs reserved seat”, and it goes viral.
What I do after office hours and in my own private capacity will affect my company brand and hence, I need to be very careful with my public behaviours.
So, at the risk of sounding facetious, once you’re a Senior Leader, you will always be scrutinised privately or publicly.
The higher you climb, the more visible you are and the more your judgment reflects on the organisation you represent.
But seniority does not hand your employer unlimited jurisdiction over your beliefs, your relationships and your family life. There has to be a genuine professional connection.
Organisations should protect their integrity. Leaders should protect the trust placed in them. And both should be honest that “reputation” is sometimes just a respectable word for prejudice, control and executive paranoia.
So the real question isn’t whether senior leaders deserve a private life. It’s this: at what point does private conduct create a legitimate professional consequence… and who gets to decide?
Where would you draw the line?
Join us at our book launch, buy a copy and have dinner on us at Bold Thai Restaurant, 19th August 2026! Click here for details!
