I once advised a founder who had done many things right. She built a calm office, hired slowly, and kept meetings short. Then a frontline manager shoved a junior during a late-night dispute. By morning she had a report, two conflicting stories, and a team already whispering. She asked me a question I have heard far too often: what are the victim’s rights and what are mine as an employer. The honest answer is that the victim’s rights define your playbook. The law gives protections that sit above policy and culture. When you respect those protections, you protect your people and you protect the company.
The first right is the most basic. Every worker has the right to a safe workplace. In Singapore, employers are expected to prevent and manage harassment, and harassment itself can trigger civil and criminal remedies under the Protection from Harassment Act. The national tripartite community has published clear guidance for employers and workers that makes prevention, reporting, and follow-through a legal expectation rather than a nice-to-have. This is not just about posters in a pantry. It is the legal floor you operate on, and it is enforceable across on-site, remote, and offsite work-related settings.
The second right is the right to report and to be taken seriously. A victim needs channels that are real, confidential, and free from retaliation. In Singapore, a person can lodge a report with TAFEP for advice and support, and may file a police report for possible violations under the Protection from Harassment Act. That dual path is important. It means the worker does not depend on an internal chain of command to pursue protection. Your role is to keep the door open, preserve evidence, and avoid any action that could be read as punishment for speaking up.
In Malaysia, the legal landscape has moved beyond employee handbooks and internal committees. Parliament enacted the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022 and created a dedicated Tribunal that hears complaints in private and can make binding awards. The Tribunal’s powers include ordering apologies, mandatory programs, and monetary compensation up to RM250,000. Failure to comply with an award is a criminal offense, and enforcement is not symbolic. The first published awards show the system is active and timebound rather than theoretical. For a founder, this means your internal process cannot be a dead end. It must complement, not block, a victim’s access to the Tribunal and to the police when a crime may have been committed.
Malaysia’s older Occupational Safety and Health Act also matters. Employers have a statutory duty to ensure, so far as is practicable, the safety, health, and welfare of employees. Courts and regulators increasingly read this to include psychological safety, bullying, and harassment. If you treat violence as a private HR issue, you miss the core obligation to keep people safe in the round. Think of the duty as a shield the law places over your workforce. You are assessed on whether you upheld it.
Saudi Arabia’s shift has been just as clear. Since 2018, harassment is a criminal offense, and dedicated workplace anti-harassment regulations require employers to put in place policies, training, and complaint procedures. This is not optional culture-building. It is regulatory compliance with real penalties. If you operate in the Kingdom, you are expected to embed complaints handling, define sanctions, and train managers to act fast and proportionately. In practice, this means your victim has the right to a complaint route that bypasses the immediate boss and leads to a documented, impartial review.
Victims also have the right to privacy and dignity during the process. Malaysia’s Tribunal sits in private. Singapore’s guidance stresses safe channels and clear separation between reporter and alleged harasser. Saudi regulations require employers to define procedures and maintain confidentiality. The principle is consistent across markets. A person who has been harmed should not have to relive the incident in a hallway or be tried in the team chat. Your job is to narrow the audience to those who need to know and to set consequences for anyone who gossips or interferes with an investigation.
Here is the part founders underestimate. The legal rights of victims of workplace violence do not start and end with complaint handling. They include access to protection from further harm. In Singapore, a victim can seek court orders under POHA that restrict contact, with expedited relief available in urgent cases. If your internal moves are slow, the court can still intervene. This is why you must document and support, not delay. The legal system is designed to step in when a person faces ongoing risk.
There is also the right to be free from retaliation. In plain language, no demotions, no pay cuts, no shift to a dead-end role because someone reported violence. This principle appears in Singapore’s tripartite guidance, in Saudi policy requirements, and in the logic of Malaysia’s Tribunal awards. Retaliation is more than firing. It includes subtle moves that a reasonable person would read as punishment. If you are tempted to “move” a reporter out of a team to reduce conflict, stop and ask whose burden you are shifting. Then design a fix that protects the reporter’s agency and career.
Medical and psychological support is another right you should treat as non-negotiable. Many incidents trigger medical leave, trauma symptoms, and a need for counseling. Your leave and benefits policies should anticipate this, not fight it. Where your local law provides medical or injury coverage, honor it without friction. Where it is silent, use your discretion to grant paid time and access to counseling. Paying for care is not only humane. It is also consistent with the employer duty to keep workers safe, a duty that regulators increasingly read to include mental health care after violence.
Founders sometimes ask whether the law cares about intent. They worry about a grey-zone shove, a thrown object, a threat said in anger, a “mutual” fight. The legal systems in our region care first about effect. Did the act cause harm, fear, humiliation, or risk. If it did, you treat it as violence. Leave room for context in discipline, but never in triage. Start with safety. Then escalate to process, documentation, and if needed the police or a tribunal filing. A manager’s skill at sales does not buy immunity from consequences.
If you operate across Singapore, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia, your next step is to align your policies to the highest protective standard you face. In practice, that means a single reporting flow with multiple safe entry points, a trained responder pool that includes at least one woman and one senior leader outside the line of business, and a commitment to written decisions that explain findings and remedies. In Singapore, publish the route to TAFEP and the police on your intranet and in onboarding, and show workers how to call those numbers. In Malaysia, add a simple one-pager that explains the Tribunal, its timelines, and the possibility of compensation or public apology orders. In Saudi Arabia, keep your policies and training current with the anti-harassment regulations and keep minutes of annual refreshers. When auditors or regulators ask, you want to show a living system, not a downloaded PDF.
There is a final right that rarely makes a slide. Victims have the right to a process that does not force them to choose between their income and their dignity. If the reporter requests a change of desk or schedule for safety, treat it as an accommodation, not a penalty. If they need to work remotely during an investigation, support it with clarity about deliverables and duration. If you need to separate the parties, move the alleged harasser first, unless there is a compelling reason not to. Write your decisions with care. A good investigation letter names behavior, references evidence, ties findings to policy and law, and explains the consequences. A poor letter tells the team you will tolerate harm as long as the numbers look good.
I still think about that founder who called me after her first violent incident. She wanted to protect everyone and everything, in that order. She learned that the law gave her a map she could trust when emotions ran hot. She kept the reporter safe, preserved evidence, suspended the manager, and offered counseling without making the victim beg for it. She documented, she explained, and she made a police report with the reporter’s consent. Her board never asked her to justify the costs. They thanked her for protecting the company by protecting the person.
If you are reading this as a founder, here is what I would do differently from most teams. I would rehearse the first 48 hours like a fire drill. I would publish external help lines and tribunal or police routes so the victim does not depend on a friendly boss to act. I would train managers to hold the boundary between “I am here for you” and “I am the investigator.” I would budget for real support and treat it as compliance, not charity. Above all, I would build a culture where reporting harm is seen as courage, not troublemaking. Culture earns trust. Law guarantees it.
This is not legal advice. It is an operator’s view on how to honor rights that already exist in our region. When in doubt, escalate to counsel. If you get this right, you will feel it. Your team will trust you, your victims will be safer, and your company will keep its most important promise.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
