For She Speaks, Women’s Aid Organisation acting executive director Nazreen Nizam breaks down the signs of intimate partner abuse, how women can spot those red flags early on, and what steps to take if you do experience them
Intimate partner violence (IPV) often begins subtly, and early warning signs can be easily dismissed or overlooked as unimportant.
One of the first indicators is controlling behaviour, where one partner excessively monitors the other’s movements, communication, and social interactions, often disguised as concern or protectiveness. Isolation from friends and family can follow, gradually eroding the survivor’s support network.
Another early sign is belittlement or constant criticism, even in jest, which can erode self-esteem and independence. Subtle threats disguised as jokes or explosive anger over minor issues can also be early signs of an abusive temperament. Financial control, such as withholding money or preventing a partner from working, further traps the victim in the relationship. Recognising these behaviours as red flags rather than normal relationship dynamics is crucial in preventing more severe abuse.
IPV is a significant concern in Malaysia, reflecting both widespread and underreported issues within households. Accurate data is challenging to capture due to the private nature of the abuse and societal stigma, which often leads to underreporting. However, indications from our Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) data suggest that IPV is prevalent.
In 2023, WAO alone received over 509 enquiries through our helpline calls about IPV, highlighting the urgent need for intervention and support. These figures likely represent only a fraction of the actual cases, as many victims may not seek help due to fear, shame or lack of resources.
Nazreen Nizam is the acting executive director of the Women’s Aid Organisation in Malaysia, the largest service provider for domestic violence survivors in Malaysia (Photo: Daniel Adams)
1 / 1
In my work, I often find that misconceptions about intimate partner violence (IPV) hinder effective intervention and support for survivors. A key misunderstanding is the belief that IPV solely involves physical abuse. This narrow view overlooks the severe impacts of emotional, psychological, financial and sexual abuses, which are less visible but can be equally, if not more, destructive.
Emotional abuse, for instance, often involves manipulation and control that erode a person’s self-esteem and autonomy, leaving deep psychological scars.
Another common misconception is the assumption that IPV only occurs within certain demographic groups—namely, those who are economically disadvantaged or less educated. However, IPV is a pervasive issue that affects individuals across all levels of income, education and social status, reflecting the deep-seated power dynamics and control issues that transcend socioeconomic boundaries.
See also: ‘It Ends with Us’: How can we talk about domestic violence without romanticising it?
There’s a persistent belief that victims could easily leave abusive situations if they truly wanted to. This misconception fails to account for the complex web of factors that entrap victims in abusive relationships. Emotional bonds, financial dependency, fear of further violence, societal stigma and lack of support resources all play roles in why leaving might not be a feasible option for many victims. This view also unjustly shifts the responsibility onto the victim rather than addressing the behaviours of the abuser.
I feel there is often an underestimation of the impact that IPV can have on the workplace and corporate environments. Many organisations lack adequate policies or resources to support employees dealing with IPV, which not only affects the survivors’ health and safety but can also impact their productivity and the overall workplace environment.
