Arulkumar Singaraveloo and Mangalagowri Ramanathan said the lack of recorded cases more likely reflected under-reporting rather than an absence of misconduct, while Malaysian Employers Federation president Syed Hussain Syed Husman said employers might hesitate to categorise incidents as bullying, or delay action to avoid potential criminal exposure.
“Many employees could be unsure of their rights, fear repercussions or feel embarrassed to come forward,” Arulkumar, who is the CEO of human resources advisory services provider Malaysia HR Forum, told FMT.
He said that in hierarchical or close-knit workplaces, victims may also worry about being labelled as troublemakers or fear damaging their careers, which discourages formal reporting.
“Without a clear understanding of their rights, legal protection and reporting avenues, employees are unlikely to escalate matters, especially when the law is still new and few instances of its enforcement are visible,” he said.
Arulkumar was commenting on a statement on Jan 22 by human resources minister R Ramanan that none of the over 13,000 complaints lodged with the labour department in the past year over work issues concerned workplace bullying or harassment.
This is despite the fact that bullying and harassment have been categorised as criminal offences under amendments to the Penal Code since July last year.
Mangalagowri, a senior HR leader with over 20 years of experience, said employees ultimately judge reporting systems by outcomes rather than policy design.
“Until employees consistently see complaints handled independently, confidentiality truly preserved, whistleblowers protected and not sidelined, and senior leaders held accountable, grievance mechanisms will continue to exist largely as compliance tools, not actual protections,” she told FMT.
Liability versus accountability
Syed Hussain said concerns over criminal liability have heightened senior management attention to workplace conduct, which could have unintended consequences in terms of overly defensive behaviour.
“The fear of criminal liability could make managers hesitant to exercise legitimate performance management. Employees may be uncertain whether internal reporting will lead to resolution or legal escalation,” he told FMT.
As such, Syed Hussain said, criminal action should be a last resort, reserved for serious and persistent cases of workplace bullying.
“To avoid unintended consequences, employers require clear guidance on thresholds, investigation standards and how internal grievance mechanisms and external enforcement interact,” he said.
Mangalagowri also said as very few employees and managers truly understand the issue, it must be made mandatory for employers to conduct regular training that plainly explains harassment and bullying, illustrated with realistic scenarios.
“Managers must understand that intent is irrelevant. The impact and pattern of behaviour matter more,” she said, adding that studies consistently showed that many employees, for example, did not recognise repeated intimidation, exclusion, humiliation or verbal aggression as bullying.
Mangalagowri said regional surveys in Asia-Pacific workplaces show that employees often underestimate the seriousness of workplace bullying, with many reporting that they did not escalate matters because they did not think it was serious enough, or did not know it was reportable.
She said as such, countries like Australia had implemented compulsory psychosocial hazard education under workplace safety laws, ensuring leaders understood personal accountability and not just organisational liability.