<![CDATA[This study critically evaluates the efficacy of Malaysia’s statutory and human rights frameworks in safeguarding athletes against the rising tide of cyberbullying and online abuse. Operating within a high-performance environment where performative toxicity and performance-triggered vitriol are prevalent, athlete protection remains severely hindered by statutory fragmentation, legislative ambiguity, and inadequate procedural mechanisms. The primary catalyst for this research stems from critical legislative gaps, specifically, the lack of explicit statutory definitions for the terms bullying and cyberbullying, combined with inadequate penal sanctions and fragmented procedural mechanisms. Employing a mixed doctrinal and qualitative empirical methodology comprising statutory critique, comparative legal analysis against statutory models in Singapore and Australia, and semi-structured interviews with 16 national athletes, this paper exposes major structural defects in existing Malaysian legislation, including the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, Penal Code, Minor Offenses Act 1955, Defamation Act 1957 and Evidence Act 1950. Singapore and Australia were selected as comparative jurisdictions due to their advanced, purpose-built legal frameworks governing cyberbullying and digital harm... The findings demonstrate that Malaysia’s existing legal framework remains inadequate in addressing the complex realities of cyberbullying, with empirical evidence from 16 national athletes revealing significant emotional, psychological, and professional consequences arising from digital harassment, thereby highlighting the urgent need for a more coherent and rights-based regulatory framework.]]>
