share on
- Employers must back anti-harassment policies with fair investigation procedures, trained managers, confidentiality safeguards, anti-retaliation measures, and meaningful support systems that give employees confidence to come forward.
- Taking complaints seriously, preserving evidence promptly, and documenting every step are essential to maintaining trust while reducing legal and reputational risks.
- Leadership commitment, multiple reporting channels, regular training, and a strong speak-up culture empower employees and bystanders to report concerns early.
Workplace sexual harassment and misconduct continue to remain difficult but important issues for employers across APAC. While many organisations have anti-harassment policies in place, the real test is how they respond when an employee experiences, witnesses, or reports inappropriate behaviour — be it in the office, at a company event, during business travel, through client interactions, or online.
For many employees, speaking up goes beyond just “filing a complaint”. It can mean dealing with embarrassment, fear of being disbelieved, blamed, or professionally penalised — especially where the person involved is senior, influential, or connected to a client or business partner, or in some cases, mental and psychological trauma.
This is why employers have to go beyond written policies. Clear, human-centred guardrails need to be set in place: trained managers, fair investigation processes, confidentiality safeguards, anti-retaliation protections, and meaningful support for those affected.
In this feature, Sarah Gideon speaks to legal experts Ho Wei Jie (pictured above, left), Partner, Employment and Commercial & Corporate Disputes, WongPartnership LLP and Francis Chan (pictured above, right) Executive Director Head of Corporate, Commercial and Employment Practices, Titanium Law Chambers, about what employers should know when responding to workplace sexual misconduct, where organisations commonly fall short, and how HR and legal teams can build safer, more trusted reporting cultures.
Employers cannot afford to ignore complaints
When an employer becomes aware of possible sexual harassment or misconduct in a work-related setting, the first obligation is clear: the matter must be taken seriously.
According to Chan, sexual harassment and misconduct are serious allegations that must be handled carefully and sensitively because of the potential consequences for both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator.
“If the allegations are true, the perpetrator has to be punished appropriately and proportionately and steps be taken to ensure that the victim is able to recover from the incident(s),” he says. At the same time, even where there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegations, employers should not assume that nothing happened.
“Appropriate care must still be taken to manage the affected employees.”
He adds that employers have a duty to prevent sexual harassment or misconduct within company boundaries and to ensure employees are not exposed to such conduct. Failing to do so may expose employers to claims of negligence or breach of employer duties.
Chan also references the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment in Singapore, which includes sexual harassment within its definition of workplace harassment. While such advisories may not have the force of written law, employers are encouraged to align their practices with tripartite guidance.
Similarly, Ho highlights that employers have legal duties to maintain a safe workplace. In Singapore, this includes statutory obligations under the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 to ensure the safety and health of employees at work, as well as common law duties to provide a safe working environment.
She adds that employers should also keep in mind the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence, which has been considered to include an obligation to inquire into complaints of sexual harassment.
While the position on this implied duty has not been conclusively decided by a Singapore appellate court, Ho says employers should still take these principles into account as a matter of prudence.
Protecting employees while preserving fairness
A strong employer response should protect the affected employee while maintaining procedural fairness for all parties involved, Chan affirms.
He adds that employers should first ensure the immediate safety and wellbeing of the affected employee. This may include temporary workplace adjustments, alternative reporting lines, flexible work arrangements, or access to counselling and employee assistance programmes.
At the same time, employers should avoid making premature findings before an investigation is completed.
“The respondent should be informed of the allegations in sufficient detail to enable a meaningful response and should be given an opportunity to present their account. Investigators should remain impartial and avoid assumptions regarding guilt or innocence.”
Ho also stresses the importance of maintaining the balance between protecting the affected employee and ensuring fairness, confidentiality and due process for the alleged employee through implementing the following features in their internal grievance handling procedure:
- Policies prohibiting retaliation against informants who make genuine reports (e.g., anonymous “whistleblowing mechanisms”, strict no retaliation policy),
- Confidentiality protections (e.g., ensuring the confidentiality of the identities of the affected persons/ informants, unless disclosure is necessary for safety and/or other legal reasons),
- Implementing interim options (e.g., additional leave or flexibility to work from home) during the investigation period,
- Employers should investigate the complaints in a timely fashion, conducting relevant investigations and appointing neutral parties to inquire into the case.
- Employers should also ensure that the investigation is conducted in a fair and sensitive way.
- The alleged harasser should also be given an opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations / charges.
Confidentiality is another critical part of the process. However, both experts note that absolute confidentiality may not always be possible, especially where witnesses need to be interviewed or evidence reviewed.
The key, as such, is to manage information on a strict need-to-know basis. Chan advises employers to "document all decisions carefully, maintain a clear audit trail, and communicate regularly with the parties regarding process and timelines.
“A well-managed investigation protects employees, strengthens confidence in workplace processes, and reduces legal and reputational risks,” he elaborates.
When should employers escalate beyond HR?
Not every complaint will require police involvement, but employers should be alert to situations where internal HR processes are not enough.
For Chan, escalation should be considered where allegations may involve criminal conduct, significant safety risks, repeated misconduct, or conduct affecting people beyond the workplace — especially where the victim may be too afraid to report the matter themselves.
Such examples may include sexual assault, molestation, stalking, threats of violence, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, or other offences under criminal law.
“An internal investigation is not a substitute for a criminal investigation."
Where there is reason to believe a criminal offence may have occurred, employers should inform the affected employee of their right to make a police report and offer appropriate support.
In serious cases involving immediate safety risks or vulnerable persons, Chan stresses that employers may need to contact the authorities directly.
Ho, on the other hand, notes that in Singapore, employers may also have statutory reporting obligations under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 where they become aware of certain crimes, such as outrage of modesty.
She adds that escalation may also be necessary where:
- The affected employee has indicated his or her wish to make a police report or needs support in doing so, and
- Internal HR processes may be inadequate, such as the inability to run a credible investigation on their own such as key evidence being outside reach or relevant persons refuse to cooperate.
At the same time, employers should be careful not to pressure employees either to report or not to report. As Chan shares, the decision often belongs to the affected individual unless overriding safety concerns exist.
Employers should also avoid appearing to provide legal advice, although they may offer access to legal resources so employees can seek their own advice and make an informed decision.
Regardless of whether a police report is made, employers may still need to take workplace measures and conduct their own employment-related investigation.
Preserving evidence before it disappears
In workplace sexual misconduct cases, evidence can be fragile. Messages may be deleted, CCTV footage may be overwritten, and memories may fade.
Both experts agreed that evidence preservation should begin as soon as a complaint is received or a credible concern arises.
Relevant evidence may include:
- Screenshots,
- CCTV footage,
- Chat messages,
- Emails,
- Access card records,
- Mobile communications, and/or
- Electronic documents.
In addition, employers should also maintain a clear chain of custody, recording who collected the evidence, when it was obtained, and how it has been stored.
Ho’s opinion coincides, in that employers should take steps to ensure that digital evidence is not altered or modified. Where necessary, they may seek help from external service providers, such as digital forensic experts or lawyers.
"Employers should also where possible, record witness statements while the witnesses' memories are fresh.”
“Witness statements should be taken as early as reasonably possible while memories remain fresh.”
Chan adds that interview notes should accurately reflect what was said and distinguish factual observations from assumptions or opinions.
However, employers should also be mindful of the limits of their powers, particularly where evidence may be stored on an employee’s personal device. In a case involving suspected voyeurism, for example, relevant photographs may be on the alleged perpetrator’s personal phone.
He notes that employers should exercise their judgment call and, in some cases, draw adverse inferences against a refusal to cooperate with a reasonable demand.
Common mistakes that can cause further harm
One of the most damaging mistakes employers can make is failing to take complaints seriously from the outset.
Chan says this is especially risky where the alleged conduct appears informal, historical, or involves senior personnel. Delayed responses can undermine trust in the process and increase legal exposure.
Ho similarly warns against trivialising complaints by normalising borderline harassment as part of the organisation’s culture or as an industry norm.
“This may create harm/legal risks as the inappropriate conduct will be unaddressed, subjecting the affected employees' health and safety to further risks.”
Another common mistake is the absence of a proper complaint-handling or investigation procedure. Chan states that without it, investigations may become arbitrary, inconsistent, or vulnerable to bias.
This can lead to inconsistent outcomes, unclear decision-making, and perceptions that senior employees are being shielded.
Poor confidentiality management is another significant risk.
Ho weighs in that allowing “open discussions” of allegations beyond those who need to know can turn the affected employee into the subject of workplace gossip or expose them to retaliatory conduct.
To this point, Chan adds that mishandling confidentiality can "damage reputations, discourage reporting, and potentially expose employers to additional complaints.”
Other employees may treat a poorly handled investigation as the benchmark for how their own case would be handled if they ever came forward.
Retaliation is another serious concern. Employers must guard against adverse treatment of complainants, witnesses, and respondents because of their involvement in the process.
Chan shares that even subtle forms of retaliation can create liability and workplace distrust. He also notes that retaliation is prohibited under Singapore’s new Workplace Fairness Act for complaints or claims brought by employees under the Act.
Finally, inadequate documentation can create difficulties later. Employers should keep contemporaneous records showing the steps taken, evidence considered, findings reached, and reasons for disciplinary or remedial action.
As Chan puts it, a defensible process is often as important as the outcome itself.
Building a culture where employees feel safe to speak up
Creating a speak-up culture requires more than a policy document. It requires employees to believe that if they come forward, they will be heard, protected, and treated fairly.
Chan reinforces that leadership must consistently demonstrate that complaints will be taken seriously and addressed appropriately, regardless of the seniority of those involved.
Employers should implement clear anti-harassment policies, multiple reporting channels, and accessible complaint procedures. For employees, they should also know whom they can approach if their direct supervisor is involved in the alleged misconduct.
Anonymous reporting mechanisms, Chan adds, may also encourage early reporting.
For Ho, she believes that employers should develop anti-harassment policies in consultation with workers and, where applicable, unions. These policies should reflect values such as mutual respect, empathy, people-centredness, and cultural understanding.
"In terms of structure, employers can develop a proper harassment reporting line such as offering multiple reporting channels (away from the employee’s direct supervisor if they are the alleged perpetrator) or providing a reporting hotline.”
Training is another essential piece. Chan suggests that managers should on recognising warning signs, responding appropriately to disclosures, and avoiding retaliation.
“This is important because most grievances arise not because of the organisation’s lack of aspiration to do right by the employee, but the failure of the people to uphold these values and follow procedures,” he explains.
Ho reinforces that training should happen on two fronts:
- Employees should be equipped to recognise, prevent, and report inappropriate behaviour, and
- HR, line managers, and supervisors should be trained to handle harassment issues properly.
"Organisations should communicate investigation processes transparently so employees know what to expect if they raise a concern,” Chan echoes.
Staff surveys, culture reviews, and exit interview feedback can help identify issues before they escalate.
Most importantly, employers need to follow through.
“Employees are far more likely to report concerns when they see that previous complaints were handled respectfully, fairly, and without adverse consequences for those who came forward,” Chan says.
From bystanders to workplace guardians
Recent public awareness initiatives have also renewed attention on the role that bystanders can play in preventing harm.
One example is Singapore’s “Don’t be a Bystander! SPOT it. Report it.” campaign, which encourages members of the public to respond to sexual crime or unsafe behaviour through a four-step framework: Spot, Protect, Observe, and Tell.
While the campaign is aimed at the wider community, its principles can also be useful in the workplace.
For employers, the framework can be adapted as follows:
- The first step is to stay alert and Spot suspicious behaviour.
- The second step is to Protect potential victims — but only when it is safe to do so.
- The third step is to Observe and remember useful details about the perpetrator or incident.
- The final step is to Tell the Police as soon as possible.
While the S.P.O.T. campaign is designed for the wider community, its principles are highly relevant to workplaces. For HR leaders and employers, the framework can be adapted to strengthen workplace safety, encourage bystander intervention and support a stronger speak-up culture.
Do they know how to report? Do managers know how to respond? Are victims protected from retaliation? Are complaints treated with care, not suspicion? Are processes fair enough to protect all parties, while still recognising the trauma that may be involved?
Ultimately, workplace sexual misconduct prevention is not only a compliance issue. It is also a question of trust.
A strong system does not turn every complaint into an administrative transaction. It gives employees confidence that if something happens, they will not be left to manage it alone — and that reporting is part of protection, accountability, and restoring safety.
READ MORE: Wrongful dismissal in Malaysia: When is a termination unfair, and when is it justified?
Photo / Provided
share on
