Introduction: The Mandate for Psychological Safety and the Dawn of a New Legal Era
Workplace bullying in Malaysia has reached a legal and moral tipping point. Moving beyond mere complaints, it is now recognized as a systemic failure with profound psychological, organizational, and criminal consequences. This profound shift was catalyzed by a series of disturbing incidents, primarily within the public sector, that forced the nation to confront an uncomfortable truth: bullying is a pervasive psychosocial risk that threatens the dignity and safety of employees.
The public conscience was severely shaken by reports detailing the chronic abuse of junior medical officers. High-profile cases—such as the suicide of a specialist doctor in Lahad Datu Hospital[1] and allegations of staff being locked in rooms, verbally abused and systematically sidelined in places like Tawau and Ipoh[2] General Hospital, revealed a toxic culture of hierarchy, unmanageable workloads, and intimidation. These incidents, alongside a November 2024 case involving a military cadet suffering fractured ribs and spine from physical abuse, demonstrated how deep-rooted power imbalances breed cruelty[3].
The governmental and judicial response has been decisive and dual-layered. In August 2025, the Ministry of Health (MOH) launched the Workplace Bullying Guidelines, officially acknowledging bullying as a severe hazard and specifically defining psychological bullying to include the intentional imposition of excessive workloads. Crucially, parallel amendments to the Penal Code (Act A1750), effective in July 2025, introduced criminal liability for abusive behaviour that causes fear, distress, reputational harm, or even suicidal ideation.
Together, these developments mark a decisive pivot: workplace bullying is no longer merely an HR issue; it is a legal, compliance, and governance issue. Employers face heightened expectations to ensure a psychologically safe environment and prevent retaliation. Malaysia is now operating under a dual enforcement system where harassment carries civil, industrial, and criminal accountability. The era of tolerating “tough love” or “workplace banter” is definitively over. With the enforcement of new laws in July 2025, employers who fail to act face severe repercussions.
What Exactly Is “Workplace Bullying” Under Malaysian Law?
Malaysia has yet to enact a standalone Workplace Bullying Act, but the law has evolved through guidelines, case law, and statutory duties to define bullying as a serious form of psychological and organisational misconduct. Unlike sexual harassment, which is legally recognised and actionable even as a single incident—workplace bullying generally refers to repeated, sustained, and unreasonable behaviour that humiliates, intimidates, isolates, or undermines an employee.
The Ministry of Health’s 2025 Workplace Bullying Guidelines provide the clearest contemporary definition. Bullying includes conduct such as imposing excessive workloads, public shaming, withholding information necessary to perform work, deliberate exclusion, spreading rumours, micromanagement intended to cause distress, threats to job security and retaliation against those who voice concerns. The Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), through the PRiSMA psychosocial risk guidelines, similarly classifies bullying as a workplace hazard capable of causing psychological harm.
From a legal perspective, the Industrial Court recognises bullying as misconduct when it involves abuse of authority, unreasonable pressure, targeted humiliation, or hostile work environments. Courts have consistently held that managers owe a fiduciary obligation to treat employees with dignity, fairness, and proportionality, and that bullying fundamentally breaches this duty.
Civil harassment law, in contrast, requires persistent oppressive conduct (as clarified by the High Court in Dhanaraj v Bishopgate[4]), meaning not every bullying incident satisfies the tort. Nevertheless, under employment law and occupational safety obligations, even non-repetitive bullying behaviour may still justify disciplinary action, remedial intervention or constructive dismissal claims.
The Legal Revolution: Criminalizing Abuse and Defining Harassment
The legal framework now explicitly declares that the psychological abuse inherent in bullying is as detrimental as physical assault, materializing through legislative amendments that elevate harassment to a criminal concern.
The New Penal Code Provisions: Harassment Becomes a Crime
The cornerstone of this shift is the amendment to the Penal Code (Act A1750)[5], making July 2025 a landmark moment in Malaysian employment law.
- Broadened Scope of Harm: New provisions (Sections 507B to 507G) formally recognize that psychological trauma, emotional distress, reputational damage, and financial loss constitute legal harm arising from abusive conduct.
- Criminalizing Abuse: Offences encompass threatening, abusive, or insulting language or behaviour designed to cause harassment, distress, fear, or alarm (Section 507B). Penalties can include imprisonment of up to three years.
- Digital Misconduct: The law specifically addresses modern abuse, including cyberbullying and doxxing (Sections 507E/507F), where publishing a person’s identity information to cause fear is a criminal act.
- Extreme Consequences: Provisions like Section 507D(2) target acts of provocation or threat leading to a suicide attempt or death, carrying a maximum punishment of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Industrial Court Trends — How Courts Recognise Workplace Bullying
The Industrial Court plays a central role in defining the boundary of acceptable professional conduct. Recent decisions illustrate the principles shaping modern workplace bullying jurisprudence, demonstrating what actions justify the dismissal of the perpetrator.
(A) Abuse of Authority and Public Humiliation
In the case of Chan Cheong Sing v Sri Jelutung Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd [2025][6], the Court upheld the dismissal of a manager who forced a foreign worker to stand outside holding a placard as punishment. The Court described the act as “inhuman treatment” and a form of public shaming incompatible with the dignity owed to employees. Managers, the Court stressed, are held to a higher standard due to their fiduciary relationship with the employer and the abuse of power constitutes serious misconduct.
(B) Hostile Work Environment and Repeated Unreasonable Treatment In cases like Saritha a/p Muniandy v Smart Chemical Sdn Bhd [2024][7], the Court recognized bullying as a form of targeted mistreatment involving sustained criticism, exclusion, and unreasonable workloads. The pattern of humiliating comments, differential treatment, and a lack of managerial support was identified as creating a hostile working environment and a form of targeted abuse. The recognition focuses on the pattern of abusive conduct used to undermine the employee’s role.
(C) Malice, Victimisation, and Double Jeopardy
In Krishnan a/l Arumugam v MEMC Electronic Materials Sdn Bhd [2025][8], the employer re-charged an employee for an offence for which a stern warning had already been issued and imposed an unlawful salary reduction. The Court described the employer’s actions as “pure malice” and a “blatant disregard for fairness”. This form of managerial victimisation is recognized as bullying because it reflects malicious intent rather than genuine disciplinary management.
(D) Off-Site Misconduct and Toxic Power Dynamics
In Harry Wong Wei Chen v Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) [2021][9], misconduct, including verbal abuse and sexual harassment, occurred during a work-related overseas trip. The Court emphasized that managerial bullying and harassment are not confined to the physical workplace. When conduct abuses power and undermines mutual trust, dismissal is justified, especially when the employer’s policy explicitly covers work-related travel and electronic media.
(E) Patterns of Bullying Recognised by the Court
The Industrial Court consistently identifies actions that breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and justify the dismissal of the perpetrator. These patterns include:
- Public or private humiliation and targeted abuse.
- Abuse of supervisory authority or targeted manipulation.
- Conduct motivated by malice or personal hostility (e.g., punishing the same offence twice).
- Isolation, exclusion, or withholding information necessary for work.
- Unwelcome verbal, physical, or digital misconduct.
Defining Professional Boundaries: Bullying in Legal Practice
Disciplinary action for misconduct within the legal profession is governed not only by industrial and criminal law but also by the Malaysian Bar’s regulatory framework, which mandates a high standard of conduct for practitioners.
The Bar’s Stance: Bullying as Professional Misconduct
The Malaysian Bar has explicitly recognized and condemned workplace bullying as a form of misconduct under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA).
- Formal Classification: The Bar adopted a resolution in March 2023[10] to formally classify workplace bullying as misconduct under Section 94(3) of the LPA. This decision was based on evidence showing that bullying leads to negative effects on mental wellbeing (anxiety, depression) and harms the reputation of the profession.
- Definition: Bullying includes conduct such as excessive workloads, humiliation, isolation, threats, and abuse of authority that compromises a victim’s mental health and performance.
- Fiduciary Duty: The Bar stressed that all members, especially those in supervisory roles, have a fiduciary duty to ensure a safe environment for subordinates.
Regulatory and Remedial Measures
The Bar has mandated specific actions to combat this toxic culture:
- Mandate for Rulings: The Bar resolved to issue specific rulings to classify and regulate bullying as misconduct, and to implement confidential and independent support systems for victims.
- Professional Responsibility: In June 2024[11], the Bar reminded members of their professional duty to act with courtesy, civility and candour, emphasizing that members must maintain mutual respect to uphold the dignity of the profession.
- Remedial Action: Victims within legal workplaces can now formally file a complaint with the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board. The Bar also provides support through its Peer Support Network (PSN) for those experiencing psychological strain due to workplace mistreatment.
Practical Guide for Malaysian Organizations: Establishing a Zero-Tolerance Culture
Malaysia’s approach to bullying is guided by two major frameworks that elevate psychosocial safety to a national standard: the Ministry of Health (MOH) Guidelines (2025)[12] and DOSH’s PRiSMA Framework[13].
Government Guidelins on Workplace Bullying
The regulatory framework establishes the minimum standards for prevention and management:
- MOH Guidelines (2025): Issued in August 2025, these were the first to officially define bullying broadly, encompassing excessive or unreasonable workloads, verbal abuse, isolation, threats, and abuse of authority. Heads of Department are specifically mandated to ensure confidentiality and protect complainants from retaliation.
- DOSH PRiSMA: This framework reinforces the employer’s duty under OSHA 2022 to ensure mental well-being. It requires organizations to identify psychosocial hazards (like bullying/stress), conduct structured assessments (PRiSMA), implement controls, and train supervisors, thereby treating bullying as a primary safety and health issue.
Practical Guide for Organizations: Establishing a Zero-Tolerance Culture
Compliance with these standards demands a cultural transformation across three essential pillars:
- Policy and Framework: Handbooks must define misconduct clearly, incorporating concepts of psychological harm (e.g., excessive workload) and ensuring proportionate punishment. Policies should be explicitly broadened to cover off-site activities where an employment relationship exists. Furthermore, managers must be trained to avoid unlawful sanctions, such as permanent salary deductions, which are deemed malicious.
- Investigation and Due Process: Procedures must mandate prompt, fair, and impartial investigation conducted in good faith and adhering to natural justice. Investigators must be trained to recognize that the victim’s silence does not equate to acquiescence or consent.
- Accountability and Culture: Training must emphasize criminal liabilities under the Penal Code and the high fiduciary duty managers hold to protect dignity. The organization must ensure no employee is subjected to humiliating or degrading treatment (e.g., public shaming). Timely intervention is critical for maintaining industrial harmony. Ultimately, the law is the baseline; organizations must strive for a culture where doing good deeds, speaking kind words and possessing a good heart are professional imperatives.
Employer Response Framework: Handling Workplace Bullying Complaints
Because workplace bullying often involves subtle patterns, power imbalances, and psychological harm, employers must adopt a structured and legally defensible response framework. A failure to act promptly and fairly exposes organisations not only to Industrial Court claims but also to OSHA enforcement and potential criminal implications under the Penal Code. A consistent, transparent, and well-documented process is therefore essential.
(A) Receiving and Documenting Complaints
Every bullying complaint must be treated seriously. HR or designated officers should:
- Acknowledge the complaint in writing
- Record dates, witnesses, and supporting documents
- Assess immediate risks (e.g., mental health, retaliation)
- Decide whether interim protective measures are needed
Ignoring or minimising complaints is itself viewed by the Industrial Court as oppressive conduct contributing to constructive dismissal.
(B) Conducting a Fair and Impartial Investigation
Investigations should be prompt, confidential, and grounded in natural justice. Employers must:
- Appoint neutral investigators with no conflict of interest
- Give both parties the right to be heard
- Gather witness statements and documentary evidence
- Avoid pre-judging or assuming guilt
- Maintain confidentiality to prevent retaliation
The Industrial Court repeatedly condemns disciplinary actions tainted by malice, bias, or “looking for mistakes,” as seen in cases like Krishnan a/l Arumugam.
(C) Interim Measures and Protection from Retaliation
Employers should consider temporary adjustments such as:
- Reporting-line changes
- Worklocation separation
- Leave or welfare support
- Restricting contact between parties
Under the MOH guidelines, complainants must be shielded from any form of reprisal, transfer or adverse treatment.
(D) Decision-Making and Corrective Action
Outcomes should align with written policies and proportionality. Options include:
- Mediation or behavioural coaching
- Formal warnings
- Demotion or removal of supervisory authority
- Dismissal for serious misconduct
- Restorative interventions to rebuild safety
Clear communication of findings and rationale is necessary to maintain trust.
Conclusion: A New Era of Accountability and Psychological Safety
Malaysia is entering a pivotal era where workplace bullying is no longer confined to isolated sectors, moving into scrutiny across law firms, corporate offices, and high-pressure professional environments. This systemic problem, often fueled by toxic hierarchies and humiliation masked as “training”, demands that workplaces be judged by what they tolerate.
The legal environment is now unequivocally hostile. With strengthened Penal Code amendments introducing an unprecedented layer of criminal enforcement for psychological misconduct, bullying carries real legal consequences. The Industrial Court reinforces this with jurisprudence that: –
- Affirms that sexual harassment can be constituted by a single act, rejecting claims that silence implies consent.
- Demands high integrity and fairness from employers, severely punishing disciplinary procedures tainted by malice or unlawful sanctions.
- Sets a stringent benchmark for managerial conduct, holding supervisors accountable for respecting the human dignity of all subordinates.
For employers, proactive compliance is essential to mitigate severe legal, civil, and criminal liabilities. However, legal compliance should be viewed as the baseline, not the ceiling. Ultimately, the most effective safeguard is the cultivation of a workplace rooted in humanity. Beyond the fear of prosecution, organizations must strive for a culture where doing good deeds, speaking kind words and possessing a good heart are professional imperatives, securing a dignified workplace for all.
Authored by: Siow Chan Wai, Shawn (Partner)
For further legal advice on Employment Law, please contact us at Y Kong, Wong & Partners.
[1] New Strait Times, ‘Doctor found dead in her home in Lahad Datu’ (online, 15 September 2024) https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2024/09/1106090/doctor-found-dead-her-home-lahad-datu.
[2] CodeBlue, ‘Housemen Bullying At Ipoh General Hospital: A Scandal Ignored — Houseman’ (online, 3 February 2025), https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2025/02/housemen-bullying-at-ipoh-general-hospital-a-scandal-ignored-houseman/.
[3] ‘Cadet suffers fractures to spine, ribs in latest alleged bullying case at Malaysia’s military university’, CNA Asia (online, 11 November 2024), https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-bullying-abuse-upnm-military-university-fractured-ribs-spine-khaled-nordin-4740351
[4] Dhanaraj a/l Vasudevan v Bishopgate Capital Ltd & Ors [2025] MLJU 2510.
[5] Ng Wing Yan, ‘Legal Update : Hidden Cost of Silence – Bullies in suit met Malaysia’s New Penal Code’, (online, 18 August 2025), https://www.ykwong.com.my/legal-update-hidden-cost-of-silence-bullies-in-suit-met-malaysias-new-penal-code/#_ftn2
[6] Chan Cheong Sing v Sri Jelutung Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd [2025] ILJU 415.
[7] Saritha a/p Muniandy v Smart Chemical Sdn Bhd [2024] ILJU 158.
[8] Krishnan a/l Arumugam v MEMC Electronic Materials Sdn Bhd — [2025] ILJU 375.
[9] Harry Wong Wei Chen v Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) — [2021] ILJU 2.
[10] Malaysian Bar, “Resolution to Recognise Workplace Bullying as a Form of Misconduct”, https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Resolution%20to%20Recognise%20Workplace%20Bullying%20as%20a%20Form%20of%20Misconduct.pdf
[11] Malaysian Bar, “Peer Support Network | Template Policy for Protection against Harassment in the Workplace” (online, 5 November 2024), https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20358-2024.pdf
[12] Codeblue, “MOH’s New Workplace Bullying Guidelines: Department Heads Must Protect Victims From Retaliation”, (online, 21 August 2025), https://codeblue.galencentre.org/2025/08/mohs-new-workplace-bullying-guidelines-department-heads-must-protect-victims-from-retaliation/
[13] Department of Occupational Safety and Health, “Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace (PRisMA) 2024”, https://polimas.mypolycc.edu.my/images/unit_keselamatan/Guidelines%20on%20Psychosocial%20Risk%20Assessment%20and%20Management%20at%20the%20Workplace%202024.pdf.