KUALA LUMPUR – The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) has raised serious concerns over a Federal Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the words “offensive” and “annoy” under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, warning that the decision undermines freedom of expression in Malaysia.
CIJ executive director Wathshlah G. Naidu said the ruling in Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah effectively legitimises the continued criminalisation of online speech based on vague and subjective standards, even though the court found that Quah should not have been prosecuted over her Facebook post on Covid-19 outbreaks at immigration detention centres.
“While the outcome spared the accused, the substance of the decision affirms the criminalisation of online speech deemed ‘offensive’ or intended to ‘annoy’. This significantly weakens constitutional safeguards under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution,” CIJ said in a statement.
The media watchdog acknowledged the Federal Court’s position that freedom of expression is not absolute and may be restricted under Article 10(2) of the Constitution. However, it stressed that such restrictions must comply with international human rights standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, and must be based on a clear and demonstrable risk of serious harm.
CIJ said Section 233 has repeatedly been used as a political tool to curb dissent and suppress criticism of the government, including speech involving race, religion and royalty.
“This is evident not only in the case of Heidy Quah, but also in recent investigations involving Rex Tan, Fahmi Reza and other journalists and political critics,” it said.
Although the presiding judge, Justice Nallini Pathmanathan, noted that the provision could be narrowed by “reading down” its scope, CIJ said retaining the law in its current form leaves excessive discretion in the hands of enforcement authorities.
“The ruling effectively lowers the threshold for criminal liability, despite the highly punitive nature of Section 233, which carries fines of up to RM500,000 and imprisonment of up to two years,” the group said.
CIJ warned that the risk of criminalising legitimate public interest speech remains high, particularly criticism of state institutions and government policies, as well as debate on issues deemed sensitive, including race and religion.
It added that a democratic society must allow robust, uncomfortable and critical expression, and that criminal sanctions should be reserved only for extreme cases involving incitement to imminent violence.
CIJ reiterated its call for Section 233 to be repealed or, at the very least, amended to introduce narrow and precise definitions that target demonstrable harm rather than subjective offence.
“This decision underscores the urgent need for stronger judicial scrutiny to ensure that freedom of expression is meaningfully protected in line with international human rights standards,” it said.– February 7, 2026