Questions around pay confidentiality, or pay secrecy, including restrictions on employees disclosing or discussing their pay, are becoming increasingly relevant as approaches to pay transparency evolve across the APAC region and beyond.
For employers with operations in Hong Kong, the key consideration is not simply whether a pay confidentiality clause can be enforced, but whether relying on it is lawful, proportionate and commercially sensible.
In this article, we examine the legal and practical position in Hong Kong and place it in a wider regional context, drawing on insights from our experts in eight other APAC jurisdictions. We also consider how broader moves towards greater pay transparency in the APAC region and beyond (including the European Union and United States) may influence the way multinational employers approach this area in practice.
Employers and employees often view remuneration differently.
Based on practical experience, pay secrecy clauses do not appear to feature prominently in Hong Kong employment contracts, although it is difficult to assess how common they are across the market.
Where used, they are typically aimed at protecting commercially sensitive compensation structures, reducing recruitment risk from competitors, complying with data privacy obligations in respect of salary data under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, and preserving bargaining flexibility where pay is individually negotiated. Examples include clauses:
For employers, pay confidentiality may therefore reflect commercial strategy, market positioning, retention priorities, budget decisions and flexibility. That said, any confidentiality obligation should be carefully framed and proportionate, particularly where an employee is discussing only their own pay.
For employees, however, pay transparency can be one of the few ways to assess whether they are being paid fairly, to identify potential bias or discrimination and for individual career planning. More broadly, attitudes towards pay secrecy at work appear to be changing, with growing recognition that it can act as an obstacle to equal pay.
Unlike in some jurisdictions, there is no legislation in Hong Kong prohibiting pay confidentiality clauses or mandating pay transparency. Individuals may in any event find it taboo to discuss their salaries, with cultural reasons playing a part.
In principle, pay secrecy clauses are valid and binding in Hong Kong as there is no general prohibition on including such clauses in employment contracts. However, such clauses may not always be enforceable in practice, particularly where doing so would breach Hong Kong’s anti-discrimination framework.
Employers should be aware that Hong Kong’s anti-discrimination legislation applies to all aspects of employment, including disciplinary action and dismissal. If a pay confidentiality clause is used to conceal an employer’s discriminatory pay practices or is enforced selectively against employees raising pay equality concerns linked to a protected characteristic (e.g. sex), employers may risk facing discrimination claims from aggrieved employees.
Under the Employment Ordinance, Hong Kong’s principal employment legislation, summary dismissal is reserved for serious misconduct and instantly ends the employment relationship without notice or payment in lieu. A mere breach of a pay confidentiality clause may not reach that threshold. On the contrary, an overly harsh response may expose employers to wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal claims, particularly where the employee has simply discussed their own pay with colleagues.
For multinational employers, developments elsewhere can influence approaches to pay confidentiality and transparency even where local law does not require change. It is therefore useful to consider Hong Kong’s position in the wider regional and global context.
In the APAC region, the regulatory landscape on pay confidentiality remains fragmented, with differences in regulatory approaches and requirements across jurisdictions.
Australia and New Zealand have introduced statutory protections for employees who discuss or disclose their pay.
In Australia, Since December 2022, employers have been prohibited from including pay secrecy terms in employment contracts or policies. Employees now have a workplace right to:
As such, any pay secrecy terms entered into on or after 7 December 2022 are unenforceable, and it has been unlawful to include such terms in new employment contracts since June 2023.
In New Zealand, it is unlawful for employers to take adverse action (e.g. dismissal, demotion or disadvantage) against employees who discuss or disclose their pay, ask about another employee’s pay, participate in a discussion with another employee about that employee’s pay, or are asked about their pay by another employee.
By contrast, employers in jurisdictions including India, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand can generally impose pay confidentiality requirements.
In Malaysia, for example, while there is no explicit ban on salary discussions, pay secrecy can be enforced through confidentiality clauses within the employment agreements.
Elsewhere, the position is more nuanced: in Japan, workers must be allowed to discuss pay where necessary to exercise their rights to organise and bargain collectively, while in South Korea, confidentiality clauses may be permitted but employers face significant limits on imposing sanctions for breaches.
Despite these differing approaches to pay confidentiality, there are signs of a broader move towards greater pay transparency in parts of the region, particularly in respect of gender pay reporting.
For example, in Australia, larger employers must report gender equality data to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on an annual basis. The Agency then publishes employer gender pay gaps. Elsewhere, in Japan, employers with 101 or more employees must publish gender pay gap information and other gender equality indicators annually. Smaller employers are subject to ‘best-efforts’ obligations. Finally, in South Korea, various gender pay and workforce disclosure obligations apply depending on employer size, listing status and whether the employer is a public institution. For further information on gender pay reporting obligations around the world, please see our map here.
These developments in APAC do not exist in isolation and appear to sit within a wider global shift towards greater pay transparency.
In the European Union, Member States were required to transpose the EU Pay Transparency Directive into national law by 7 June 2026. You can see how Member States are progressing with transposition here. The rules seek to increase pay transparency, enforce equal pay and improve access to justice for employees who face pay discrimination. In particular, the Directive establishes a ban on pay secrecy clauses that prevent workers from disclosing their pay.
In the US, transparency obligations are governed by state and local law rather than through federal legislation. For the past decade, laws designed to promote pay equity have become increasingly common, although requirements imposed vary substantially. Some simply prohibit employers from interfering with employees’ open discussion of compensation matters, but an increasing number of jurisdictions require affirmative disclosure of pay bands at varying stages of the hiring process. The most expansive statutes require advance disclosure of a position’s pay scale, sometimes including the value of fringe benefits, in any advertisement of a role. The number of jurisdictions with such laws is growing; currently, at least 16 states, including California, Colorado, Washington, Illinois, and New York, have enacted laws requiring salary disclosure in job postings and adverts.
The more notable shift, however, is in how large companies are behaving voluntarily, extending transparency well beyond what is legally required by publishing salary bands for all roles across the US, partly as a way to streamline compliance across multiple jurisdictions.
Hong Kong has not adopted equivalent pay transparency protections or legislation. Nevertheless, multinational employers operating here are increasingly influenced by global transparency initiatives, group-wide policies and market expectations.
Even where legally permissible, contractual pay confidentiality clauses or broad pay confidentiality policies may carry practical risks that employers should consider:
Instead, if Hong Kong employers want to maintain pay confidentiality, they may wish to:
In any event, employers should act with caution and seek legal advice before taking disciplinary action, particularly where the disclosure concerns only the employee’s own remuneration.
The key takeaway for Hong Kong employers is one of proportionality and preparation.
Pay confidentiality clauses may still have a role, particularly for genuinely sensitive information, but employers should avoid using them in a way that suppresses legitimate pay equity discussions or reinforces historic disparities through salary-history-based recruitment.
For multinational employers, the wider regional and global picture adds another layer of complexity. What is permissible in one APAC jurisdiction may be restricted or protected in another, while global developments may increasingly influence group-wide policies and practices. Pay confidentiality cannot be considered in isolation: equal pay and discrimination risks and evolving transparency requirements may also shape the appropriate approach.
As regional and global trends continue towards greater pay transparency, the question for Hong Kong employers is increasingly when, not whether, they will feel the effects.
Meet Delphius, our AI-powered guide to global employment law for in-house legal and HR teams
