Malaysia not highest in ASEAN school bullying, Philippines tops PISA 2022 rankings – The Vibes

Report on School Bullying in Malaysia and the ASEAN Region: An SDG Perspective

Introduction: Aligning with Sustainable Development Goals

School bullying represents a significant impediment to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). Creating safe, non-violent, and inclusive learning environments (SDG Target 4.a) is fundamental for educational attainment and student well-being. This report analyzes recent data on school bullying in Malaysia, contextualizing its prevalence within the ASEAN region and assessing the implications for national SDG commitments.

Analysis of PISA 2022 Data

The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) offers critical insights into the prevalence of bullying, a key indicator for monitoring progress towards SDG 4. The data, based on self-reports from 15-year-old students, highlights significant regional disparities.

Regional Comparison within ASEAN

According to Dr. Abdul Rahman Ahmad Badayai of the National University of Malaysia, the PISA 2022 findings position the Philippines as the country with the most severe bullying problem in the ASEAN region and globally.

• Philippines: Leads the region with 76.6% of students reporting at least one incident of bullying. Furthermore, 34.5% experience it at least once a week, and 36% are in the top 10% globally for bullying exposure.
• Malaysia: While not the highest, Malaysia’s figures indicate a persistent challenge to ensuring safe learning environments. 10% of students reported verbal bullying a few times a month, a figure that exceeds the OECD average of 7%.

A comparative ranking for verbal bullying prevalence in ASEAN is as follows:

1. Philippines (15%)
2. Malaysia (10%)
3. Indonesia (9%)
4. Thailand (6%)
5. Singapore (5%)

Despite a notable decrease from 17% in 2018 to 10% in 2022, Malaysia’s rate of verbal bullying remains above the global average, indicating that more concerted efforts are needed to align with the objectives of SDG 3 and SDG 4.

Insights from Other International and National Studies

Additional data sources provide a broader perspective on the issue, reinforcing the need for robust policies to protect children from violence (SDG 16.2).

TIMSS 2023 and GSHS Findings

• Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023: This study recorded a 56% prevalence of bullying among Malaysian Form Two students, placing the country fourth highest among 45 participants and significantly above Singapore’s 38%. However, comparisons are limited as only two ASEAN nations were included.
• Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS): Regional data indicates an average ASEAN bullying prevalence of approximately 23%.
• National Data: The Malaysian Ministry of Education reported 7,681 cases in 2024. It is noted that cultural factors may lead to underreporting, potentially masking the true scale of violence against children and complicating efforts to monitor SDG targets accurately.

Conclusion: Implications for SDG Achievement

In conclusion, while recent media coverage has highlighted an increase in reported bullying cases in Malaysia, comprehensive international data indicates that the country does not have the highest prevalence in the ASEAN region. The Philippines consistently ranks highest, with Malaysia placing second or third depending on the specific indicator. Nevertheless, the existing prevalence of bullying in Malaysia poses a direct threat to its commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals.

• SDG 4 (Quality Education): Bullying undermines the creation of safe and inclusive learning environments essential for quality education.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The mental and physical health of students is compromised by exposure to bullying.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): Bullying is a form of violence against children that contravenes the goal of building peaceful and inclusive societies.

Continued and enhanced interventions are crucial to address school bullying effectively and ensure Malaysia meets its targets for providing a safe, supportive, and healthy educational experience for all students.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article directly relates to SDG 4 by focusing on the safety of the learning environment. Bullying creates a hostile and non-inclusive atmosphere, which is a barrier to quality education. The discussion of bullying prevalence in schools across Malaysia and other ASEAN countries highlights challenges to ensuring that educational settings are safe for all students.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is relevant through its aim to end violence against children. School bullying is a form of physical and psychological violence. The article’s data on various types of bullying (verbal, physical, relational) and its prevalence rates directly addresses the core concerns of Target 16.2, which focuses on eliminating all forms of violence against children.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  Bullying has significant negative impacts on the mental and physical health of students. Although the article does not explicitly detail health outcomes, the issue of bullying is intrinsically linked to student well-being. Addressing bullying is a crucial step in promoting mental health among young people, which is a key component of SDG 3.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

  The entire article is centered on the prevalence of bullying, which undermines the creation of “safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments.” The data from PISA and TIMSS studies, which measure student exposure to bullying, directly assesses whether this target is being met in the surveyed countries.

• Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.

  The article’s core subject is bullying, which is a form of violence against children. The statistics provided, such as “76.6 per cent of students [in the Philippines] reporting at least one incident of bullying” and the “56 per cent prevalence of bullying among Malaysian Form Two students,” are direct measures of the scale of violence experienced by children in the school context.

• Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.

  This target is implicitly connected. Bullying is a major risk factor for poor mental health, including anxiety and depression, among adolescents. By discussing the high prevalence of bullying, the article highlights a significant challenge to promoting student mental health and well-being. Reducing bullying is a preventative measure that contributes to achieving this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Percentage of students exposed to bullying: The article provides specific data from the PISA 2022 study that can serve as a direct indicator. For example, it states that in the Philippines, “76.6 per cent of students reporting at least one incident of bullying” and “34.5 per cent experiencing it at least once a week.” This measures the frequency and prevalence of violence in schools.
• Prevalence of specific types of bullying: The article breaks down bullying into different forms, providing a more nuanced indicator. It mentions that “Ten per cent of Malaysian students reported verbal bullying, such as classmates spreading harmful rumours, at least a few times a month,” which is higher than the OECD average of 7%. This allows for targeted monitoring of different forms of violence.
• National prevalence rates from different studies: The article cites multiple sources that act as indicators. The TIMSS 2023 study recorded a “56 per cent prevalence of bullying among Malaysian Form Two students,” while the GSHS indicates an “average ASEAN prevalence of approximately 23 per cent.” These figures serve as benchmarks to track progress over time.
• Number of officially reported cases: The article mentions that “Government data from the Ministry of Education indicated 7,681 cases reported in 2024.” While acknowledging that this is likely an underrepresentation, this official statistic is an indicator of the institutional response and reporting mechanisms related to violence against children.

Summary Table

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: thevibes.com