Espact Handout on Bullying

What the New Law Says About Bullying – Including Online Abuse

Although the recent amendments to the Penal Code do not define “bullying” in so many words, they introduce six new offences—Sections 507B to 507G—that directly target the kinds of conduct most commonly associated with bullying, particularly verbal abuse, psychological harassment, and online threats.  

These provisions apply to any form of bullying, whether in person, at school, in the workplace, or online. This is especially significant in an era where cyberbullying, including doxxing and online threats, is becoming increasingly common and damaging.

 Section 507B – Threats or Abuse

Criminalises threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, whether in person or online, if they are intended—or known to be likely—to cause harassment, distress, fear, or alarm. Penalty: up to 3 years’ imprisonment.

Section 507C – Causing Distress Without Intent

Even if the bully didn’t intend harm, they can be liable if their words or actions are likely to make a person feel distressed or alarmed. This includes cyber comments, messages, and posts. Penalty: up to 1 year in prison.

Section 507D – Causing Fear of Harm or Provoking Self-Harm

Making someone believe they or someone they care about will be harmed, or provoking them to harm themselves, is now a criminal offence. Includes online provocation or threats. If it results in suicide or an attempt, the penalty may extend to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Section 507E – Doxxing to Cause Distress

Makes it a crime to share or publish someone’s private information online (e.g. photos, phone numbers, addresses) with intent to cause distress or fear. Penalty: up to 3 years in prison.

Section 507F – Sharing Information to Threaten or Facilitate Harm

Criminalises sharing of personal information to make someone believe they will be harmed, or to help others attack or harass the person. Includes group targeting and viral attacks. Penalty: up to 1 year in prison.

Section 507G – Broad Definitions of Harm

Defines 'harm' to include not just physical injury, but also psychological harm, reputational damage, and emotional trauma—common outcomes of online bullying.

Together, these sections offer the most complete legal framework Malaysia has seen to date to combat bullying in both physical and digital spaces. They reflect a critical shift: that bullying—especially cyberbullying—is not merely misconduct, but can be a criminal act.

Still, the law could go further. A single, clearly defined offence of 'bullying' would help schools, workplaces, and the public more easily identify and act against it. Until then, these six provisions offer real protection, especially for those who suffer in silence behind screens of fear.

Ragging Must Be Banned

 The recent reports of bullying of medical interns in Penang and the tragic consequences that followed must force authorities to examine afresh the criminal conduct of ragging that is passed off as an acceptable social ritual. Not long before the Penang case, there was the case of a naval cadet from a local university who died of injuries allegedly from ragging by other cadets. Sadly, these are not the only instances of reported cases of ragging and bullying ending in physical injuries and death.

Racist underpinnings

Whenever these serious offences come to light, colleagues of the victims reveal the existence of a widespread practice of the kind of conduct that led to the tragedies. Additionally, the Penang case suggests disturbing trends of complicity by individuals in authority and racist underpinning in the conduct that caused the death.

The situation calls for a closer and more honest examination of the circumstances that led to these tragedies than has been the case until now. If the allegations of racism and the role it played in the death of the medical intern have even a semblance of truth, there is a need for the authorities in charge of institutions like universities and hospitals to deal with the matter urgently.

Politeness and a generally accommodating, non-confrontational attitude that shapes our community have allowed our public institutions to be managed on ethnically divided streams.  Officials in charge of internships are insensitive or indifferent to the fears and uncertainties of those being initiated into the profession. Discriminatory treatment and exclusion, some of the reported causes of the tragedy in the Penang case, may force those who are going through a critical phase in their lives into hopelessness and despair.

A two-pronged approach to ragging

A two-pronged remedial measure must be put in place. The first step must be to ban ragging in all its forms in all educational institutions and training hospitals and facilities such as hostels. A perusal of some of the disciplinary regulations of public universities does not reveal any provisions against ragging. Neither are there any such provisions in the Educational Institutions (Discipline) Act 1976 which applies to all public higher education institutions other than public universities. The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, under whose provisions, public universities are established deals extensively with the activities of students, student organizations, and groups but nothing in those provisions deals with ragging.

Private Universities and Colleges are regulated by the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (Act 555). The regulation of the discipline and conduct of students in these institutions under Part VIII of Act 555 does not contain any provisions that deal with ragging. Act 555 empowers institutions established under its provisions to make their own student disciplinary rules but there are no guidelines issued by the regulatory bodies as to what has to be included in them.

The most effective means to ban ragging would be to introduce provisions in the above regulations and laws to expressly ban ragging in higher education institutions. However, students and others exposed to ragging will have a greater degree of protection if the prohibition is accompanied by proactive measures by the institutions to advise, counsel, and monitor the problem within the institutions. The counselling must be extended to those managing internship programmes.

The armed forces are another area where serious attention must be given to ragging.

The Ethnic Issue

Whilst banning ragging is important, the more difficult problem lies in dealing with the racial overtones of some of the reported practices that are associated with ragging. It is not only the physical and psychological abuse by peers that must be considered but also the practices of officials and mentors that raise fear or apprehension in an individual because of the differential treatment and exclusion.

Laws alone will not deal with this aspect of the ragging problem. Clear steps must be initiated by the governors of institutions, the professoriate, and the professional bodies to be vigilant against discrimination and differential treatment of those, especially freshmen and interns, to whom they have a responsibility to train or initiate. Leaders of the institutions involved must introduce measures in their organizations to ensure that institutional practices and individual idiosyncrasies do not drive those who are assigned to them to be mentored to resort to the kind of desperate acts that are reported.