FINALLY there is now legal redress for sexual harassment at the workplace. Referred to as “misconduct”, and not a felony, by the Federal Court, it is no wonder that until this recent decision, those who were sexually harassed could only put in a complaint to the boss and the matter may or may not be attended to. As the judge said the Malaysian Code of Practice on the Prevention and Education of Sexual Harassment (1999 Practice Code) merely provided guidelines for establishing in-house mechanisms to inculcate a culture that abhors the act. It does not provide legal recourse to the victim. As such the Federal Court sitting in the case of the former Tabung Haji general manager has provided a remedy: recourse through civil suits.
Sexual harassment is defined by the University of Michigan website as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct” sexual in nature in return for employment, say, or when refusal to reciprocate leads to discrimination like adversely affecting promotion prospects. Persistence despite objections also constitutes sexual harassment. But why has it taken forever before there was, legally speaking, formal recognition of a real problem in this country? Of course, as is often the case, victims are said to have imagined the misconduct. Much like male opinions on rape that blame the female victim because she dresses seductively — which unfortunately, has been said even in court by some sitting judges — this treatment which degrades women is probably the result of cultures that look upon them as inconsequential. And, this includes the idea some men have that the women might actually enjoy their attention. Sexual harassment is probably not seen as such by many because teasing between men and women is part of the courtship ritual in many cultures. Exacerbated by the flooding of the workplace with women employees, men must have misconstrued this as an opportunity for spouse-hunting, including polygamous marital arrangements. After all, office romances leading to the altar is not uncommon. Some women are even prepared to be the second wife of the boss; examples are not hard to come by.
None of this, however, excuse men for harassing women sexually. As the Federal Court judge said in passing judgment, this act “lowers the dignity and respect of the person… harassed, affecting his or her mental and emotional well-being”. Free of gender bias, the judgment seeks to emphasise the gravity of the misconduct, which the legislators are clearly unaware of. Is it too much to ask for a law to be promulgated that would ensure the “misconduct” becomes a felony. That this suggestion may seem excessive to many reflects the general attitude, one that does not comprehend the trauma caused to the offended victim of unwanted sexual attention. And when accompanied by unwarranted discrimination there can be no argument that there is material deleterious effect. To then make the perpetrator a felon, at least under the latter situation, is commensurate with the misery caused. Such a law would end notions of machismo and male chauvinism.