The fine for an "offensive" Facebook post went from RM50,000 to RM500,000

In February 2025, the penalty under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act was multiplied by ten.

Before: up to RM50,000, up to one year's jail. Now: up to RM500,000, up to two years, with a daily penalty of RM5,000 if the offence continues after conviction — and up to five years where the offence is committed against a minor.

That happened while the constitutionality of the section was being litigated. In August 2025 the Court of Appeal struck down the words "offensive" and "annoy" as unconstitutional. In February 2026 the Federal Court put them back — while making the section harder to prosecute under.

If you post in Malaysia, this is the law that most likely applies to you.

1. Section 233 — the workhorse

What it covers: communications that are obscene, indecent, false, menacing or grossly offensive, made with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person, using network facilities or a network service.

The 2025 amendments, gazetted 7 February 2025:

• "Offensive" became "grossly offensive", with additional Explanations
• Penalty raised to RM500,000 and/or two years (from RM50,000 and one year)
• Daily penalty raised to RM5,000 (from RM1,000) for continuing offences
• Up to five years where the offence is committed against a child under 18
• New section 233A prohibiting unsolicited commercial electronic messages (spam)

Why it gets used so much: it covers anything posted through a network — Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Telegram, blog comments, product reviews.

The scale of use. The Centre for Independent Journalism reported that Malaysian authorities invoked restrictive laws 187 times in 2024 to restrict free speech, assembly and expression — with the Sedition Act 1948 and section 233 described as the "most weaponised tools."

2. The Heidy Quah case — and what it settled

This is the most important development, and most online commentary is out of date on it.

August 2025 — Court of Appeal. In a unanimous ruling on 19 August 2025, the Court found the words "offensive" and "annoy" in section 233 unconstitutional, breaching Article 10 (freedom of speech) read with Article 8 (equality). The Court held these terms did not comply with Article 10(2)(a), which sets out permissible restrictions.

The activist behind the case, Heidy Quah, had been charged in 2021 over a Facebook post about conditions in immigration detention centres.

February 2026 — Federal Court. A five-judge panel partly reversed that decision. The words were reinstated and held not unconstitutional.

But the same judgment raised the bar. The Federal Court held Quah should never have been charged: her post consisted of matters of fact and opinion protected by Article 10(1)(a), it was not offensive, and the mens rea element of intent to annoy was absent. Counsel in the case described the ruling as raising the threshold for prosecution — and the guidance applies to both the old and amended versions.

Civil society's response was sharply critical. CIJ said it was "alarmed" at the reinstatement. ARTICLE 19 has campaigned for repeal, arguing terms like "offensive" and "annoy" are near-infinite in scope and hinge on subjective interpretation. CIJ has also argued the 2025 amendments are equally expansive and vague despite the "grossly offensive" substitution.

Our read: the section survives, the words survive, but a prosecution now needs genuine gross offensiveness and proven intent — not merely a post someone in authority disliked.

3. A case that shows the threshold working

Worth knowing, because acquittals rarely get reported.

In Pendakwa Raya v Muhammad Zaki bin Omar [2025] MLJU 374, the accused was charged under s.233(1)(a) over a Facebook comment said to be offensive and intended to annoy.

The Sessions Court found that while the prosecution successfully linked the Facebook account to him and proved he made the post, it failed to establish that the post was objectively offensive or made with intent to annoy.

That is the two-limb structure in practice: proving you posted it is not the same as proving the offence.

4. The Sedition Act 1948

Still in force, despite repeated repeal promises across multiple governments.

What it criminalises: speech with a "seditious tendency" — including exciting hatred or contempt against the government, the Rulers, or the administration of justice, and promoting ill-will between races.

Penalty: fines, imprisonment up to three years, or both.

How it's used in practice: frequently alongside section 233 and Penal Code provisions rather than alone. In one reported instance, police arrested seven individuals over allegedly seditious and threatening social media content targeting political leaders, investigating under the Sedition Act, CMA and Penal Code together.

The criticism: its terms are vague enough to enable selective enforcement, and at least 20 cases between 2010 and 2015 targeted opposition figures, academics and activists.

5. The Penal Code provisions that also apply

• Section 298 and 298A — wounding religious feelings and causing disharmony on religious grounds
• Section 499 and 500 — criminal defamation
• Section 504 — intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace
• Section 505 — statements conducing to public mischief

These matter because charges often come in combination. A single post can attract s.233 CMA, a Sedition Act charge, and a Penal Code charge simultaneously.

6. The 3R line

Race, religion and royalty is where enforcement is fastest and least forgiving in Malaysia.

Realistically:

• Content touching race, particularly on affirmative action and ethnic quotas, attracts investigation quickly
• Content on religion engages sections 298 and 298A
• Content on royalty has produced prosecutions — including a charge against a radio personality over a Facebook post said to have insulted a state crown prince

Satire is not a safe harbour. Graphic artist Fahmi Reza has faced repeated s.233 charges over political caricatures. Commentary on his cases notes that while courts recognised the artistic and political nature of the work, content was still found injurious under s.233 — illustrating what one firm called a "thin and inconsistently drawn line between satire and criminality."

A comedian was charged with three counts under s.233(1)(a), one relating to a stand-up set joking about his own mixed-race heritage.

This isn't a prediction that you'll be charged for a joke. It's a statement that the line is not where intuition puts it.

7. The bigger practical risk: defamation

For most Malaysians, the realistic exposure isn't a criminal charge — it's a letter of demand.

Civil defamation under the Defamation Act 1957 covers anything published online, and Malaysian awards are substantial. Sharing counts as publishing. WhatsApp groups count as publication. See also: [Before you post that video of the guy who parked like an idiot — read this](/p/in-malaysia-shaming-someone-on-social-media-could-land-you-in-jail)

And note the direction of travel: in one 2025 case the High Court found an Australian academic and blogger had defamed Malaysia's internet regulator over articles criticising the agency.

8. Platform-side changes: the Online Safety Act

New, and it changes the environment even though it doesn't target you directly.

The Online Safety Act 2025 (ONSA) came into force on 1 January 2026, with four sets of subsidiary regulations. It imposes duties on platforms with response periods as short as one hour and significant penalties.

Three points on scope that matter to users:

• ONSA does not impose obligations on individual users
• ONSA does not apply to private messaging features
• It applies outside Malaysia where a person provides covered services in Malaysia under a CMA licence

From 1 January 2025, service providers with at least eight million Malaysian users were required to hold applications service provider class licences from MCMC — which brings them within ONSA.

What this means for you in practice: faster takedowns and more aggressive platform moderation, independent of whether anything you posted was criminal.

What to actually do

Before you post:

• Can you prove every factual claim? Truth is a defence to defamation only if you can establish it.
• Are you stating opinion or alleging a crime? "Scammer", "thief", "corrupt" are the words that attract letters of demand.
• Is this 3R territory? If it touches race, religion or royalty, the margin for error is much smaller.
• Would you say it in front of a magistrate? Not a legal test, but a useful one.

If you're investigated or charged:

• Don't post about it. That habitually makes things worse.
• Get a lawyer before giving a statement. Section 233 now has two limbs — the content and the intent — and how you explain yourself early matters.
• Preserve the original post and context. In Muhammad Zaki, context is what defeated the prosecution.
• Don't delete once you're aware of an investigation.

If you receive a letter of demand:

• Don't ignore it — default judgment is a real risk.
• Early apology and removal can materially reduce damages.
• Get a lawyer.