Anti-bullying tribunal: how much power should quasi-courts have?

If these structural issues are not addressed, the system may become fast but fragile, well intentioned but uneven.

From Liew Li Xuan

When the Anti-Bullying Tribunal Bill was tabled by law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said, much of the public attention focused on the promise of better protection for young people.

But the Bill also introduces a legal structure that deserves deeper scrutiny.

The anti-bullying tribunal is not just a support mechanism. It is a quasi-judicial body with powers that resemble that of a court, but without the same safeguards and procedures that courts traditionally uphold.

Malaysia has several existing tribunals that resolve disputes more quickly than the courts. The anti-bullying tribunal follows this model, but the stakes are higher because it will handle cases involving minors, parents, educators, and institutions.

It is designed to be accessible and fast, but this simplicity comes with risks.

A tribunal is not a court. Yet there are provisions in the Bill to allow it to make serious findings, issue compensation orders, mandate counselling, and direct institutions to take specific actions.

These are meaningful powers. The concern is that the tribunal’s simplified procedures may lead to weaker protections for those accused, especially when both victims and respondents are children.

This tension becomes clearer when considering how the tribunal’s jurisdiction interacts with schools, disciplinary boards, police reports and civil suits.

The Bill does not fully explain which authority takes precedence in overlapping cases. A situation may arise where a school is handling an internal disciplinary matter while parents simultaneously file a claim with the tribunal, or where a police investigation and tribunal process run in parallel.

Without clear boundaries, parents may attempt to pick a system that gets them the outcome they prefer. Institutions may also receive conflicting directives and students may be pulled into multiple processes for the same incident.

Instead of simplifying justice, ambiguity can create confusion.

Judicial review is the safeguard offered to those who believe the tribunal has acted unfairly.

However, judicial review is limited and does not re-evaluate the facts of a case. It only examines whether the tribunal acted within its powers and followed proper procedure.

This is not a practical remedy for most families because a judicial review is costly, time-consuming and complex. For a child or teacher who has been wrongly accused or a school that receives an unfair order, this safeguard may feel more theoretical than meaningful.

Another issue is how the tribunal may change the way schools handle such cases. If a school begins viewing the tribunal as the main body responsible for resolving bullying cases, internal safeguarding practices may weaken over time.

Schools could unintentionally shift responsibility outward, relying on the tribunal to fix problems that should be addressed within the institution.

A healthy safeguarding ecosystem requires clarity on when cases should remain within school jurisdiction, when they must be escalated and how both systems complement each other. Without this, the tribunal could become a substitute for proper school-level intervention, rather than a support structure.

The introduction of the tribunal reflects Malaysia’s commitment to take bullying more seriously, and this is an important step.

But good intentions alone will not create a fair and effective system. Strong legal structure is essential.

The tribunal needs clear jurisdictional guidelines, consistent procedural safeguards and transparent pathways for appeals.

It must protect victims without compromising due process. It must support schools without replacing their responsibilities. It must respond quickly without sacrificing fairness.

Malaysia has an opportunity to design a model of child-centred justice that is both empathetic and legally sound. The anti-bullying tribunal can succeed if its powers and limits are clearly defined. If these structural issues are left unaddressed, the system may become fast but fragile, well intentioned but uneven.

Young people deserve both safety and justice, and the law must be made to deliver both. - FMT

Liew Li Xuan is a youth advocate and founder of LifeUp Malaysia, an organisation dedicated to digital wellbeing, preventing cyberbullying and promoting scam awareness.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.