Anti-Bullying Legislation: A Legal Reckoning For Malaysian Workplaces

Download

In a landmark move, Malaysia has amended its Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, effective July 2025, to criminalise all forms of bullying including cyberbullying. The legislative reform signals a new chapter in the country’s approach to interpersonal misconduct, extending legal scrutiny from schoolyards to boardrooms.

The recent case that catalysed public interest in this topic was the tragic death of Zara Qairina Mahathir, a Form One student whose story gripped the nation and drew unprecedented attention to the pervasive nature of bullying. Her case became the first to be prosecuted under the amended law, setting a legal precedent not only for the education sector but also for corporate Malaysia, where bullying has long existed under the radar.

While Zara’s story rightly underscored the vulnerabilities of youth, it also exposed a broader cultural malaise. Bullying does not confine itself to classrooms, it thrives in office corridors, virtual meeting platforms, and entrenched corporate hierarchies. The 2025 amendments now provide a formal legal framework to address what has traditionally been an overlooked or trivialised issue in employment settings.

Legal Recognition Of Workplace Bullying

The Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 and Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2025 introduced Sections 507B to 507G, which collectively criminalise a wide spectrum of behaviours, including verbal abuse, threats, harassment, cyberbullying, and doxxing.

Historically, such misconduct was often dismissed as “office politics,” a “tough management style,” or simply part of a high-pressure environment. Victims were frequently told to "toughen up." Despite this cultural minimisation, the Industrial Court has consistently treated workplace bullying as a serious disciplinary breach — long before the latest legislative changes.

Legal Precedents

A series of Industrial Court rulings illustrate how bullying has been judicially interpreted:

1.               Bakti Comintel Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Ibrahim Abdullah [1997] 3 ILR 358

The use of abusive and threatening language was deemed sufficient grounds for dismissal.

2.               Acidchem (M) Bhd v Goh Hock Teong [2003] 1 ILR 904

Citing BR Ghaiye’s Misconduct in Employment, the court held that industrial peace is imperilled if employees are permitted to scandalise or demean colleagues. Vulgar and indecent language towards superiors was considered grounds for immediate dismissal.

3.               Nagasteel Equipment Sdn Bhd v Syed Md Nasser Syed Ahmad [2006] 2 LNS 0885

The use of insults such as “bahlul” and “kepala otak” by a superior was found to be unbecoming and constituted misconduct.

4.               Harry Wong Wei Chen v Petroliam Nasional Berhad [2021] 1 ILR 340

The claimant’s use of the phrase “fuck you” towards a female subordinate was ruled as workplace harassment. The court made clear that vulgar, crude, and abusive language has no place in a professional setting.

“The usage of crude, vulgar and abusive language as a form of workplace bullying seems to become more rampant... The only way to arrest this 'disease' would be for the victims to voice out to the higher management.”

5.               Jeffry Sekhar Arulandu v Air Energy Consulting (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2025] 2 ILR 631

In one of the first cases post-amendment, the Industrial Court rejected a claim of constructive dismissal brought by a Finance Manager who alleged coercion following bullying allegations. The court held that:

5. There was no evidence of duress or mala fide intent by the employer.

6. The company had followed due process in investigating complaints.

7. The claimant’s resignation was voluntary and premeditated, evidenced by his attempt to negotiate a severance payment.

This case reinforces that employees accused of misconduct are expected to engage with internal investigations. For HR practitioners, the case underscores the importance of procedural integrity and timely action in responding to complaints.

The Digital Dimension: Cyberbullying In The Workplace

The proliferation of remote and hybrid work models has introduced a more insidious form of bullying: cyberbullying. While traditional bullying is often observable, digital harassment can be more covert, manifesting through passive-aggressive emails, public shaming in group chats, exclusion from meetings, or unauthorised sharing of private information (doxxing).

Section 507F of the amended Penal Code now specifically criminalises the distribution of personal data without consent, a common intimidation tactic in both professional and digital spaces. This includes the misuse of sensitive information such as medical records, salary details or residential addresses.

Employers are now legally obliged to not only police physical misconduct but also establish policies for digital conduct. IT departments must work in tandem with HR to implement safeguards and monitoring systems. Failure to do so may expose the company to both legal liability and reputational damage.

Implications For Employers And HR Professionals

With bullying now formally criminalised, organisations must rethink their internal policies and practices. Human Resource departments, as the first line of defence, play a critical role in operationalising compliance. Key actions include:

• Policy Review and Update

Revise employee handbooks to reflect the new legal framework, specifically Sections 507B–507G.

• Training and Awareness

Conduct regular training sessions to help employees identify bullying behaviours and understand reporting mechanisms.

• Confidential Reporting Channels

Establish secure, anonymous systems for employees to report misconduct without fear of reprisal.

• Swift and Transparent Action

Investigate all complaints promptly and impose proportionate disciplinary measures, up to and including termination or referral to law enforcement.

A Watershed Legal Moment

The 2025 amendments represent a watershed moment in Malaysian employment law. By formally recognising bullying as a criminal offence, the government has acknowledged the profound psychological, emotional, and organisational harm it causes.

Employers who fail to act on reported bullying may find themselves vulnerable to claims of constructive dismissal as seen under Section 81E of the Employment Act 1955 in sexual harassment cases, a principle likely to extend to bullying under similar circumstances.

As the Malaysian workplace continues to evolve, particularly in its embrace of digital platforms and hybrid work, the message is unequivocal: bullying is no longer a private HR issue. Instead, it is a matter of public law. The challenge now lies in translating legal provisions into a culture of respect, dignity, and accountability.

10 October 2025