Why Malaysia Needs an Anti-Bullying Tribunal Act

Prepared by Liew Li Xuan

5 December 2025

Bullying has become a persistent and widely under-addressed social issue in Malaysia. It occurs in schools, universities, workplaces and increasingly across digital platforms. Despite its long-term psychological and behavioural impacts, there is still no dedicated legal avenue for victims to seek timely and proportionate remedies. Current mechanisms rely on fragmented laws and non-binding guidelines that do not adequately capture the repeated and relational nature of bullying. A clearer and more coherent institutional response is needed. The proposed Anti-Bullying Tribunal Act offers a practical and policy-aligned path forward.

Existing legal frameworks provide partial coverage but lack coherence. Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 criminalises offensive or menacing online content. Yet, its broad drafting and punitive orientation make it ill-suited for most bullying scenarios, especially among minors. Penal Code provisions such as Sections 509, 506 and 298A require proof of intent or significant harm, thresholds that many bullying cases do not meet despite real and cumulative impacts on victims. 

The upcoming Online Safety Bill aims to streamline cyber-harm regulations, but early indications suggest that cyberbullying may not be addressed in a sufficiently precise or relational way. Non-legislative efforts, such as the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission’s (MCMC) public education campaigns and the Ministry of Education's disciplinary guidelines, are helpful but remain advisory and reactive.

The cumulative effect of these limitations is a structural gap in victim protection. Bullying is often repetitive, builds gradually, and involves power imbalances and psychological coercion. These dynamics do not easily fit within traditional criminal or civil processes, which are designed for discrete and clearly defined acts. Victims also face barriers to reporting, including fear of escalation, uncertainty about legal options and the absence of a dedicated pathway for early intervention. A specialised tribunal can address these challenges by providing a more accessible, lower-threshold mechanism that focuses on timely resolution, proportionate remedies and behavioural change.

The announcement on 24 October 2025 by YB Dato' Sri Azalina Othman Said signals the government’s recognition that bullying requires a structured institutional response rather than ad hoc or punitive measures. A tribunal would operate as a quasi-judicial body offering administrative recourse for cases that are too sensitive or complex for criminal courts but too serious to be left to internal disciplinary processes alone. It can incorporate restorative tools such as behavioural improvement plans, counselling orders, mediated agreements and targeted educational interventions. These remedies are more aligned with the nature of bullying and more supportive of long-term rehabilitation for both victims and offenders.

From a constitutional perspective, Parliament has clear authority under the Federal List of the Ninth Schedule to legislate on civil law, education and social welfare. This provides a strong foundation for establishing a tribunal similar to the Industrial Court or Tribunal for Consumer Claims. These bodies demonstrate that Malaysia already has functional models for accessible, low-cost dispute resolution that operate alongside the judiciary while remaining subject to judicial review. An Anti-Bullying Tribunal aligned with this institutional architecture would be consistent with Malaysia’s broader governance framework.

International experiences reinforce the feasibility of this approach. The United Kingdom’s Education Tribunal and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner provide alternative avenues for bullying and digital harm cases. They prioritise early intervention, proportionality and accessibility, and they reduce the burden on courts while improving outcomes for victims. These models show that administrative tribunals can address bullying effectively without compromising due process.

As Malaysia moves toward drafting the Anti-Bullying Tribunal Act, several design considerations will be critical. These include the scope of jurisdiction across educational institutions, workplaces and digital platforms; the definitions of bullying that capture repeated patterns rather than isolated incidents; the evidentiary thresholds that recognise cumulative harm; and the range of remedies available to the tribunal. It will also be important to align these elements with constitutional safeguards under Articles 5, 7(2) and 8 to ensure fairness, clarity and legal certainty.

Recognising bullying as a public wrong is the first step; establishing a dedicated tribunal is what will ultimately translate that principle into practice. If well designed, the Anti-Bullying Tribunal Act can strengthen Malaysia’s social protection architecture, reduce reliance on fragmented laws and provide a coherent framework for prevention, resolution and rehabilitation. It offers an opportunity to modernise Malaysia’s approach to bullying by prioritising safety, accountability and inclusive governance.