In another era I was a simulator instructor training students who in their own country were strongly subject to cultural mores. One of which was unquestioning obedience to authority or higher status. One of the questions I asked of them was how would they take over control from a captain when it was obvious the approach was so badly unstable that an over-run was inevitable.
In present case it's a bit early too say anything because it's not yet confirmed whether the aircraft overran during landing or during attempted late GA. Culture alone is not the cause. How well the FO was trained has a lot to do with the confidence he exudes in the execution of his duties. In the same airline in the Mangalore accident the FO who himself was upgrading to Capt(not in that flight) didn't provide any input about badly out of profile descent and approach till the RW was right under them but couldn't enforce the GA. The airline did make some changes to their CRM training because one year later a repeat of similar act after touchdown was overridden by the FO. In Australia in an A320 incident the FO was PF had more experience on type and when he messed up an approach the Capt due to his lesser experience on type felt diffident to interfere that led to a GA. In the present case FO could have interfered if approach was unstable in any parameter or the float was appreciable. But that could only happen if FLD was examined critically taking into consideration the margin if any they had with TW and worse than wet condition on a RW that would not permit overrun.