Authored By: HO XIN YUE
Multimedia University, Malaysia
Abstract
Workplace sexual harassment is a critical problem in the sense that it influences the dignity of the employees and integrity of the organization. The Employment (Amendment) Act of Malaysia especially the improved Part XVA of the Employment Act 1955 (hereinafter “EA”) has proved to be a major development. Nevertheless, the article also points out the gap in enforcement that does not allow complete compliance. It implies that the law has become more coverage-improved, still, protection and accountability in the victims require a more significant measure of effective enforcement and processes that are more victim-oriented and cultural changes in the sphere of professional activity.
Introduction
Sexual harassment is a widespread issue in the workplace, which cuts across different industries and ranks. It is a crime against individual dignity as well as a kind of employment misconduct that undermines the employer employee relationship. The prevalence of this issue has increased in Malaysia in the face of several high-profile cases and the increased awareness that has been raised by the #MeTooMalaysia movement. Such changes have brought about the need to act legislatively to strengthen statutory safeguards and to place more explicit burdens on employers.
A survey by the Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) revealed that 62% of 1,010 Malaysian women had experienced sexual harassment at work. 1The #MeToo wave has prompted the legislature to improve statutory protections and clarify employer duties. The first legislative measure to address sexual harassment in the workplace was proposed in 1998 but was criticized for its weak implementation and limited reporting. To address this, the EA was passed in 2023, which revised sexual harassment provisions, increased punishment severity, and expanded protection areas.
This article evaluates Malaysia’s legal system on sexual harassment in the workplace, discussing employer responsibilities, judicial interpretation, enforcement issues, recent legal changes, and proposed reforms.
Methodology
This paper employs a doctrinal and analytic methodology in reviewing the Employment Act 1955 (EA) relevant legislations and key judicial decisions. It reviews also a secondary literature including the Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace 1999 (Code of Practice 1999), commentary, and government reports. Included are comparative perspectives from the UK Equality Act 2010 and Singapore’s Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (POHA) to measure Malaysia’s development in line with international norms.
Legal Framework
The post-legal regime that applies to sexual harassment in the workplace is largely based on Part XVA of the EA as amended. The restructured provisions form the entire statutory framework encompassing both preventive provisions and remedial duties that are imposed on the employers. In S2 of EA, sexual harassment refers to any unwanted sexual conduct that is offensive, embarrassing, or poses a threat to an individual’s well-being at work. Besides, S81A of EA also defines sexual harassment complaint by stating that it is any complaint that is made by or against any employee or employer.
The S81B of EA emphasizes the employer’s role in investigating sexual-harassment allegations in the workplace. If the employer refuses to investigate, the complainant must be informed within 30 days. However, they may decline unsubstantiated complaints or those made in bad faith. If the complainant challenges the employer’s refusal, they can refer the case to the Director General, who may require an inquiry or no action. Besides, if sexual harassment is found after an inquiry, the accused can be suspended, fired, or demoted. If not an employee, the employer must advise the relevant authority under S81C of EA.
Moreover, S81D of EA states that a complaint to the Director General is evaluated and investigated within thirty days. If it is against a sole proprietor, the Director General conducts the investigation. If the complaint was dismissed or frivolous in a previous case, the complainant must be notified within thirty days in writing. S81E of EA also gives the power to the Director General to affirm that sexual harassment took place; upon which the complainant has the right to have the contract terminated without giving a notice and has the right to receive the wages and termination benefits as provided by the Act or the contract.
The repeal of S81G of EA which limited the provision measures to all workers irrespective of their income level and contractual status assures the protection to all employees irrespective of their income level and their contractual status. S81H of EA also requires that employers prominently post a notice to sensitize employees to sexual harassment in the workplace, thus representing a positive attitude to the safety of the workplace environment by being visible and educating.
All these reforms are pointers to a paradigm shift, which makes sexual harassment a compliance requirement with statutory consequences that it was a mere internal HR issue. The employers are thus legally required to take written policies, investigations, and records to prove compliance with the responsibilities.
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial interpretation has significantly influenced Malaysia’s legal interpretation of sexual harassment in the workplace, defining its limits and establishing guidelines on employer liability, employee behaviour, and fairness in disciplinary measures, making it a significant employment malpractice.
The landmark Federal Court decision in Mohd Ridzwan bin Abdul Razak v Asmah bt Hj Mohd Nor 2established the fact that sexual harassment is a grave crime of breach of human dignity and integrity. The court affirmed that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress with respect to which a liability was proved is not exclusive to the employment relationship, but it is also applicable to the domain of personal rights.
In the case of Shamani Devi Chendra Chekheran v. Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts 3, the court determined that the claimant who repeatedly used intimate language in referring to her supervisor as “Ubbie”, which means darling or sweetheart, and made sexual comments, was sexually harassed. The court emphasized that this behaviour especially towards a superior was not appropriate, uncomfortable, and hence violated workplace standards and was considered harassment.
The case of Lim Po Seng v Resort Villa Gold Course Berhad 4has shown the unjust termination of a worker because of the accusation of sexual harassment. There was not enough evidence to fire the employee, and therefore the court stated that it is crucial that the employer should investigate the case and address the sexual harassment. Even though Malaysia has laws that deal with such issues, there are gaps, especially in terms of financial compensation of the victims; most victims are interested in non-financial solutions, and the one that is offered is not victim oriented.
Additionally, in the recent case of Madiahlagan A/L Sundaram v Lotuss Stores (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd5, the claimant was guilty of sexually harassing a subordinate by sending suggestive pictures of women to him. The court pointed out the responsibility of managers to safeguard their subordinates and prevent suffering and fear because of improper behaviour. The High Court affirmed the decision of the Industrial Court and dismissed the appeal and fined the claimant RM6,000 in costs. This case is an example of legal ramifications of sexual harassment at work.
Thus, this proven that Malaysian judicial system is increasingly recognizing workplace sexual harassment as a form of misconduct, scrutinizing verbal, non-verbal, and off-duty behaviour. Courts emphasize procedural fairness and sound evidence in disciplinary measures, using judicial interpretation to align legal provisions with real-life experiences of victims of harassment.
Comparative Analysis
In examining the legal system that is currently applicable in Malaysia to deal with sexual harassment at the workplace post-2022, it is instructive to make comparisons between its approach and other neighbouring and common-law countries, including Singapore and the United Kingdom. The legal system of any given country is exemplification of the harmony of the reactive enforcement mechanisms and proactive prevention duties to the employers.
The legal provisions of sexual harassment in the workplace are founded on S81A to S81H of EA which has been reinforced in Malaysia. The employers must investigate complaints impartially and immediately and take disciplinary action on affirmation. In case of refusal by the employers, the complainant may take the case to the Director General of labour. Anti Sexual Harassment Act 2022 (ASHA) has provided a Tribunal against Sexual Harassment where people can make complaints. Nevertheless, implementation is still reactive and remedies are sought after an incident happens. To fully realize these laws, Malaysia’s system must evolve towards proactive prevention, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and more victim-centred procedures.
Conversely, the legal system of Singapore is more preventative and victim-focused by using the POHA and Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment published by the Ministry of Manpower. 6The POHA also outlaws a broad scope of harassment behaviours including the sexual ones, either face-to-face or through an electronic medium. The victims can seek Protection Orders and civil damages or injunction. Also, the Tripartite Advisory advances the best practice by encouraging employers to establish internal grievance processes, awareness training and provision of counselling services to the victims. Although the law of Singapore does not make a statutory timeframe, the law states that the employer should take prompt, fair, and supportive action, which is a manifestation of its policy orientation towards prevention, as opposed to redressing after the incident.
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom is actively implementing the Equality Act 2010 and the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which prohibit sexual harassment. 7The Equality Act prohibits undesired sexual conduct that violates a worker’s dignity or creates an intimidating environment. Employers are held liable for their actions unless they can prove reasonable efforts to prevent harassment. The Worker Protection Act 2023, effective in October 20248, enhances this framework by requiring employers to prevent sexual harassment and extends protection to third-party harassment, such as clients or customers.
As compared, these jurisdictions provide significant differences in philosophy and enforcement. The framework in Malaysia, as admirable in terms of legislative progress, is more of a remedial system, which is activated by complaints. The strategy in Singapore combines criminal prevention with administrative advice making employers important stakeholders in prevention. The United Kingdom, however, has gone further to statutory prevention, in which the burden is entirely on the employers to ensure that there is a harassment free environment.
Therefore, Malaysia’s legal environment is evolving, with the existence of the Code of Practice 1999, EA 1955, and ASHA 2022. However, Malaysian laws still lack a culture of prevention, compared to the UK and Singapore. Future reforms may focus on compliance rather than active enforcement to uphold dignity and equality in employment.
Recent Developments
The legal and policy environment in Malaysia regarding sexual harassment at the workplace has changed a lot over the past few years. On 1 January 2023, the Employment (Amendment) Act 2022 came into force and made essential changes to the EA with a view to improving the responsibility and protection of the employees. The amendment under S81H, the employers must now display conspicuously a notice to create awareness on sexual harassment within the workplace, and the fine should non-compliance with the investigation under S81B of EA be increased to RM 50,000 instead of RM 10,000, to prevent confusion.
The ASHA brings about a turning point in the legislative framework in Malaysia by the formation of the Tribunal for Anti-Sexual Harassment whereby any person is now allowed to make a complaint independent of employment. 9This broadens the focus from protection at the workplace to treating harassment in the society at large. Since its promulgation, government agencies, who the most notably, the Ministry of Human Resources have been conducting awareness and compliance workshops to inform employers of what the new law entails. In contrast, the UK’s Worker Protection Act 2023 places a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring requires enforcement that is stronger, procedures that are victim-centred, and cultural change in professional settings so that they can finally provide meaningful protection and accountability.
The media and societal opinion have mostly been in support but reserved. Legal experts have observed that smaller employers are still contemplating procedural compliance and the possible overlapping of the jurisdictional role of the Tribunal with current HR investigations. The system has received criticism over the years that the framework has been a reactionary one where the employers do not fulfil their legal obligation until a complaint is lodged.
On policy, the initiatives presented by Malaysia have been acknowledged by the UN Women, which identified ASHA as one of the key tools of additional gender equality and gender safety in the work environment. Nevertheless, the report has also pointed out that the change in organisational culture and the practice within the institution is an essential element of a substantive change.
Overall, Malaysia’s recent legislation and reforms demonstrate an increasing commitment to tackling sexual harassment as an issue of work system. Yet converting the statutory obligations that define such compliance into practice and attitudinal change is difficult. The ministry, NGOs and the judiciary should be able to enforce protect and dignify workers in Malaysia’s emerging legal framework.
Suggestions
Malaysia’s legal framework for workplace sexual harassment has slightly improved with the introduction of the ASHA and amendments to the EA, however, the regulatory system remains reactive. Thus, sustainable reform requires preventative measures, enforceable responsibility, victim empowerment, legislative perfection, judicial alertness, and civil action.
First, it is necessary to reinforce the statutory requirements. The up-to-date guidelines of S81B of EA have employers to undertake an investigation when a complaint is received, which places no continuing obligation to avoid harassment. The Act should then be amended by the legislature such that the employer has a proactive burden like in the case of the United Kingdom,
where the Worker Protection Act of 2023 states that organisations must take reasonable steps to prevent any form of harassment at work. These may include the implementation of compulsory training programmes, appointment of special complaint officers and internal audit carried out periodically. The creation of a preventive obligation would make Malaysia shift its focus to preventative risk management as opposed to responding to the incident.
Second, the Act should increase the powers of the Tribunal against Sexual Harassment. Currently, the Tribunal only passes orders of compensation or apology which has little deterrent impact. The Parliament should consider giving the Tribunal the powers of enforcement and supervision such as issuing of compliance directives or imposing administrative penalties to employers who do not comply. This would bring the role of the tribunal into line with the regulatory framework used by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, and thus make tribunal orders reflect into real accountability, as opposed to token ones.
Thirdly, institutionalize the Code of Practice 1999. As it is, the Code is voluntary which has led to unequal compliance in the different industries. Making the Code a legally enforceable regulation under the EA or under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA) would compel all employers to have written anti-harassment policies and grievance procedures. As the case of Singapore Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment indicates, state-approved guidelines may have a significant influence on employer behaviour, even when such guidelines are advisory in the first place.
Fourthly, survivor-specific mechanisms need to be strengthened. The monetary compensation does not suffice to deal with emotional trauma or disruption of career. The Ministry of Human Resources in collaboration with the WAO and other non-governmental organisations can set up a Victim Assistance Fund that provides free legal advice, psychological counselling, and career rehabilitation services. This initiative would reflect the principles of the restorative justice and would also be in line with the international best practices such as those provided by ILO Convention No. 190 10on violence and harassment in the workplace.
The court has a powerful role in social norm formation through legal interpretation through Mohd Ridzwan case where sexual harassment violated rights of employment and of personal). Courts value dignity and emotional health over the fact of legal compliance. However, a uniformity of laws is required. Civil society such as trade unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and professional bodies must do more to raise awareness amongst communities and corporate policing. Engagement with state actors and sensitization on-line campaigns can strengthen victims and policies grounded in local realities.
Finally, Malaysia should also be developed to be changed in respect of reactive protection regime to proactive preventive regime. With legislative transformation, judicial interpretation and civil participation the nation will be in a position to develop a culture of workplace grounded in equality, respect and accountability, and the aspiration of the ASHA will become a reality of a workplace where every employee is provided with safety and accountability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the post legal framework of Malaysia is a good, positive move at the least in addressing sexual harassment at the workplace. The EA, the Code of Practice 1999 and the ASHA establishes a two-level prevention, investigation, and redress. Nevertheless, workplace culture cannot be changed by the law. The employers should internalize their duties as not only compliance but their ethical duties, which safeguard human dignity. The middle ground between statutory enforcement and substantial institutional change and the development of a workplace culture of equality and respect is the way forward. So far the development of Malaysia is considerable but the real accomplishment of these reforms will be in the way of how these reforms are made into life at the place of work.
Reference(S):
Primary Sources
Statutes and Statutory Instruments
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022
C190- Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190) (International Labour Organisation)
Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace 1999 (Malaysia)
Equality Act 2010 (United Kingdom)
Employment Act 1955 (Malaysia) s2, 81A-81H
Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Malaysia)
Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (Singapore)
Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 (United Kingdom)
Cases
Lim Po Seng v Resort Villa Gold Course Berhad (Award No. 471 of 2023) Madiahlagan A/L Sundaram v Lotuss Stores (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. [2025] 11 MLJ 896 Mohd Ridzwan bin Abdul Razak v Asmah bt Hj Mohd Nor [2016] 4 MLJ 282 Sebastian Matthias Boehme v. Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd (Award No. 667 of 2017) Shamani Devi Chendra Chekheran v. Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts [2017] 4 ILR 273
Secondary Sources
Online Journals
N Dandavati, ‘Women’s Experiences and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Demonstrate the Urgent Need for a Sexual Harassment Act’ (Women’s Aid Organisation, 5 November 2020) https://wao.org.my/womens-experiences-and-perceptions-of-sexual-harassment-demonstrate the-urgent-need-for-a-sexual-harassment-act/> accessed 23 October 2025
B Wilson and others, ‘New Sexual Harassment Law in Malaysia’ (HRZone, 30 December 2023) <https://hrzone.com/blog/new-sexual-harassment-law-in-malaysia/> accessed 23 October 2025
‘Sexual Harassment in the Workplace – Malaysia’ (Wolters Kluwer, 2024) <https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en-my/expert-insights/sexual-harassment-in-the workplace-malaysia#mohd> accessed 23 October 2025
‘Workplace Harassment’ (Ministry of Manpower Singapore, 14 March 2024) <https://www.mom.gov.sg/faq/workplace-harassment> accessed 23 October 2025
‘Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work: Technical Guidance’ (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2023) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/sexual harassment-and-harassment-work-technical-guidance> accessed 24 October 2025
‘What Is the Worker Protection Act? New Preventative Duty Explained’ (Trades Union Congress, 2024) <https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/what-worker-protection-act-new preventative-duty-explained> accessed 24 October 2025
‘Navigating Sexual Harassment Complaints in the Workplace: Employment Act 1955 vs Anti Sexual Harassment Act 2022’ (HHQ, 3 February 2025) <https://hhq.com.my/posts/navigating sexual-harassment-complaints-in-the-workplace-employment-act-1955-vs-anti-sexual harassment-act-2022/> accessed 24 October 2025
1 Dandavati N, ‘Women’s Experiences and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Demonstrate the Urgent Need for a Sexual Harassment Act’ (Women’s Aid Organisation, 5 November 2020) <https://wao.org.my/womens experiences-and-perceptions-of-sexual-harassment-demonstrate-the-urgent-need-for-a-sexual harassment-act/> accessed 23 October 2025.
2[2016] 4 MLJ 282.
3[2017] 4 ILR 273.
4(Award No. 471 of 2023).
5[2025] 11 MLJ 896.
6‘Workplace Harassment’ (Ministry of Manpower Singapore, 14 March 2024) <https://www.mom.gov.sg/faq/workplace-harassment> accessed 23 October 2025.
7‘Sexual Harassment and Harassment at Work: Technical Guidance (EHRC) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/sexual-harassment-and-harassment-work-technical guidance> accessed 24 October 2025.
8‘What Is The Worker Protection Act? New Preventative Duty Explained TUC’ (TUC) <https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/what-worker-protection-act-new-preventative-duty-explained> accessed 24 October 2025.
9‘Navigating Sexual Harassment Complaints in the Workplace: Employment Act 1955 vs. Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022’ (HHQ, 3 February 2025) <https://hhq.com.my/posts/navigating-sexual-harassment complaints-in-the-workplace-employment-act-1955-vs-anti-sexual-harassment-act-2022/> accessed 24 October 2025.
10 C190- Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190).
