Singapore has no sexual harassment law per se; the official position is that some provisions in the Penal Code and Women's Charter already criminalise domestic violence and sexual or physical harassment, so there is no need for a separate law on this issue.

Even so, these laws are animated by the 'one black sheep' model where if a man sexually harasses a female co-worker, it is an individual aberration and other males are not guilty of the same offence.

But while the harasser is indeed responsible for his own actions, this particular model glosses over how a work environment that condones or tolerates it makes harassing behaviour possible. In other words, there is an institutional dimension to the problem, so the law must hold not just the harasser responsible but deal also with the systemic nature of the problem.

Otherwise, employers will tend to reduce sexual harassment issues to mere interpersonal problems, to be managed (away) by tweaking some personnel rules. Even where there are sexual harassment laws, the institutional problem is addressed but perfunctorily.

First, the victim is often required to complain using procedures established by her employer. If she does not, the employer is assumed to be unaware of the misconduct, which may be untrue since its agents - or supervisors - (should) know what is happening on the shop-floor.

The victim is also faulted if she does not complain expeditiously enough which, in fact, is the Achilles' heel of many a sexual harassment law. Research over the past two decades shows that women rarely report such incidents while those who do, complain only after much delay.

In a 1998 appeal, Soh Yang Tick v Public Prosecutor, where a manager in an insurance firm was found guilty of outraging the modesty of his secretary, then chief justice Yong Pung How said: 'Failure to make an early police report was (understandable) as victims are often reluctant to report such matters to the police for various reasons.'

Victims tend to tolerate the harassment. They may quietly document the incidents but make no official complaint for fear of being called a troublemaker, of not being taken seriously and perhaps even of being given negative performance evaluations.

Studies also show that what victims want most is just for the harassment to stop. They tend to be willing to allow the culprit to 'save face' and not pursue the matter legally so that their working relationship can be salvaged.

Usually the law also requires a victim to show that she had made it clear to the man that his attention was not welcome. But this requirement runs up against a cultural bias many of us have that it must be a woman's seductive behaviour or sexy dressing that makes her a target.

Yet, even though more young women dress more provocatively at work and play nowadays, there are very few court cases the world over where the victim's attire has ever come into play. Why is this?

It could be that sexily attired females welcome the attention of frisky males, so they do not complain. But, perhaps, harassers do not target the seductive office vamp?

In fact, most social science research on rape and sexual harassment victims suggests that it is more female passiveness or submissiveness that sets off harassing behaviour in men with such inclinations. If so, the provocatively attired female may appear to be too self-confident a person to be targeted.

But we continue to assume it is the 'slut' who gets harassed, even raped, because we want to believe in a just world where people get what they deserve. This bias makes us feel more secure for, if it is true, we can avoid bad things by just being good. However, instead of blaming the victim, we should be asking if the harasser has gone beyond the pale.

Actually, asking women to 'tone it down' at work suggests that there is power in feminine sexual aggression. Perhaps male and female supervisors are uncomfortable when attractive women wield such power too blatantly.

Seen in this light, sexual harassment may be largely about who wields power over whom in the workplace. This insight fits snugly into the argument that modelling sexual harassment as an individual problem is unhelpful: If it arises from individuals interacting with their workplace characteristics and situations, then a workplace where sexualised images, comments and behaviour towards women are institutionally tolerated is one that tells men that women there are fair game.

If harassment is a function of employer (in)action, then employers should not be let off the hook too easily. For example, employers in the United States are let off if they can show that pro forma procedures to report sexual harassment were in place but that the victim did not use them expeditiously enough.

This simply will not do, as sexual harassment is not just a 'black sheep' problem but really a 'family' one. To deal with its institutional dimension, a sexual harassment law should require affirmative action by employers to ensure that their workplace is not sexualised.

andyho@sph.com.sg