The alleged axe attack on a teacher in Sarawak has raised another troubling question about safety in Malaysian schools: what is going wrong, and are we doing enough to understand why these incidents keep happening?

On October 21, a 16-year-old student was arrested after allegedly attacking a female teacher with an axe at an international school in Kuching, leaving her with injuries to her hand.

Police said the student had also brought firecrackers to the school, while footage of the incident was reportedly livestreamed on social media.

The case is being investigated, and the motive has yet to be established. But the incident comes amid growing concern over bullying and misconduct in schools nationwide.

According to figures reported by the Education Ministry in February, Malaysia recorded 7,681 bullying cases in 2024, up from 6,528 in 2023 and 3,887 in 2022. The ministry subsequently recorded 2,889 bullying cases and 3,570 cases of criminal misconduct in schools in 2025.

More recently, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim told Parliament that 5,681 bullying cases had been reported between January and August 2026.

These figures point to a serious and persistent problem. However, rising reports do not necessarily mean every form of school crime is increasing, as greater awareness and improved reporting may also contribute to the numbers.

Even so, the question remains. Why are so many incidents continuing to occur despite existing safeguards?

When existing safeguards are not enough

Malaysia already has mechanisms to address bullying and student misconduct, including disciplinary procedures, reporting requirements, school safety audits and counselling services.

Yet, the persistence of these incidents raises questions about how effectively these measures are implemented and whether schools have sufficient capacity to intervene before situations escalate.

In October, Anwar acknowledged that some school administrators might conceal bullying cases to protect their institutions' reputations. He warned that such practices could leave victims suffering without adequate intervention.

If students are afraid to report abuse, if complaints are dismissed as ordinary disciplinary problems, or if administrators prioritise a school's image over the welfare of its students, existing policies cannot deliver the protection they promise.

The problem, therefore, may not simply be the absence of rules. It may also lie in whether those rules are consistently enforced, whether complaints are taken seriously and whether schools are held accountable when warning signs are overlooked.

A policy is only as effective as its implementation.

What happens before violence escalates?

Another question that deserves greater attention is what happens before a student becomes involved in a serious act of violence.

Bullying, peer pressure, family difficulties, social isolation and emotional distress are among the factors that may warrant investigation. But none should be assumed to explain the Sarawak attack without evidence.

Understanding the circumstances surrounding an incident is not the same as excusing the behaviour. Accountability and early intervention must go hand in hand.

Schools need accessible reporting channels, adequate counselling support and clear procedures for responding to credible threats. Students must also be able to seek help without fearing retaliation, humiliation or being dismissed by adults.

Parents have a role to play, too. Communication between families and schools can help identify problems that might otherwise go unnoticed. However, responsibility cannot simply be shifted between parents and educators whenever an incident occurs.

A meaningful response requires both parties to work alongside trained counsellors and relevant authorities, with each understanding their responsibilities.

The challenge is ensuring that support reaches students who need it before a situation becomes dangerous, rather than treating counselling as an afterthought once harm has occurred.

Violence does not end when the incident is over

The Sarawak attack also highlights how social media has changed the way school violence is witnessed and circulated.

When an alleged attack is livestreamed and its footage spreads online, the incident extends beyond the school compound.

Victims and witnesses may face renewed distress as recordings are repeatedly shared, while minors involved can become targets of online harassment and public speculation.

The Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia has urged the public and social media platforms to stop recirculating footage of the incident.

This is a necessary reminder that violent footage should not become entertainment or material for engagement. The public can demand accountability without amplifying the harm suffered by those involved.

At the same time, the livestreaming element raises questions about digital behaviour, the motivations behind recording violence and the responsibilities of platforms in responding to harmful content.

These questions deserve examination, but the recording itself does not establish why the attack occurred.

Are we addressing the causes or just the consequences?

Following a serious incident, calls for stricter punishment, tighter security and more surveillance are understandable. Schools must be able to protect students and teachers from immediate threats.

But security measures alone cannot resolve every problem that contributes to violence. Cameras may document an incident, and disciplinary action may punish misconduct, but neither necessarily addresses why a student chose to harm someone in the first place.

Malaysia needs to evaluate whether its existing safeguards are working, identify gaps in implementation and ensure that schools have the resources and authority to respond effectively.

That means examining not only the number of cases reported, but also how complaints are handled, how quickly interventions occur, whether victims receive support and whether repeat incidents reveal failures in the system.

It also means collecting reliable, comparable data so policymakers and the public can distinguish between an actual rise in offending and an increase in reporting.

Most importantly, investigations into serious incidents must establish the facts rather than allow speculation to shape public understanding.

The Sarawak case is still under investigation, and it would be premature to attribute it to any single cause. But it should prompt a broader examination of how Malaysia prevents violence in schools and responds when existing protections prove insufficient.

Students and teachers should not have to wait for another disturbing incident before their safety becomes a national concern.

If the response to every case begins only after someone has been hurt, the country must ask whether it is doing enough to prevent the next one.

The question is no longer simply what punishment should follow school violence. It is what Malaysia must change to stop it from happening in the first place.