"That Era Has Ended." A Judge Said That in February 2026 While Cutting a Politician's Defamation Award From RM2.5 Million to RM830,000.

On 19 February 2026, the Court of Appeal cut the damages payable to former Health Minister Khairy Jamaluddin from RM2.5 million to RM830,000.

Justice Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan said something in that judgment worth memorising if you write about Malaysian politicians: there was a period when Malaysian courts awarded damages amounting to millions in successful defamation cases. That era has ended, and we do not wish to see it return.

Four months later, on 18 June 2026, the Court of Appeal cut Lim Guan Eng's award against Muhyiddin Yassin from RM1.05 million to RM450,000 in general damages, and set aside RM150,000 each in aggravated and exemplary damages.

The direction of travel is unmistakable. It is also not a licence to say whatever you like, because RM450,000 will still end most people financially, and the criminal provisions have moved in the opposite direction — the maximum fine under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act went from RM50,000 to RM500,000 in February 2025.

1. Civil defamation: the route politicians actually take

Criminal prosecution of critics gets the headlines. Civil suits are what actually reaches people's bank accounts, and Malaysian politicians across the spectrum use them.

Recent awards, with what happened on appeal:

Three things to take from that table.

One: liability and quantum are separate fights, and the appellate courts are intervening on quantum. In both Khairy and Lim Guan Eng's cases, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the statements were defamatory and reduced only the money. In Lim's case, Justice Azhahari said the High Court was correct that the statements were defamatory and there was no reason to disturb that finding of fact — but the general damages were manifestly high.

Two: the range is enormous and unpredictable. RM50,000 in one case, RM830,000 in another. Politicians themselves think RM50,000 is inadequate and appeal it. Do not budget for a defamation risk. You cannot.

Three: who you are affects the award. In Khairy's case the Court of Appeal maintained the RM250,000 in aggravated damages partly because the defendant was a religious preacher, holding that his elevated position of trust gave him a greater, not lesser duty to verify accuracy before disseminating, and that publishing unverified false allegations abused that moral authority. Reach and standing cut against you, not for you.

And politicians sue ordinary people, not just each other. Rosmah Mansor obtained judgment in default against a TikTok account holder in May 2024 and was awarded RM100,000 in July 2025 over a video about her appearance. Ku Muhammad Hilmie was not a public figure. He was a person with a TikTok account.

2. Section 233 CMA: what actually changed in 2025 and 2026

This is the provision Fahmi Reza christened "Akta Sakit Hati" — the Hurt Feelings Act.

Before the amendment, section 233(1)(a) made it an offence to make, create, solicit or initiate the transmission of any online communication that was obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. Penalty: fine up to RM50,000, imprisonment up to one year, or both.

The Communications and Multimedia (Amendment) Act 2025, tabled 2 December 2024 and gazetted 7 February 2025, changed this materially:

The government's framing was that adding "grossly" raises the threshold of criminality, supported by new Explanations outlining what content is prohibited.

The critics' framing — and this is a genuinely contested point, so both go in — is that the amendment achieved nothing useful. Lawyer New Sin Yew argued that the illustrations apply circular logic, that what is grossly offensive to one person may not be to another with no ultimate arbiter, and that wanting to annoy someone should not be punishable by RM500,000 and two years. ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Independent Journalism have called for repeal, arguing the amended provision still fails the three-part test of legality, legitimacy and necessity, and CIJ specifically warned that satire and parody, though excepted from "false" communication, could still be caught by "grossly offensive."

3. The Heidy Quah ruling — and why the popular account of it is wrong

This is the part most coverage gets backwards, so read it carefully.

The facts. In June 2020 Heidy Quah, co-founder of Refuge for Refugees, posted on Facebook about conditions at an immigration detention centre, recounting a mother's description of what she and her child faced, and attributing Covid-19 spread to substandard conditions. She was charged on 27 July 2021 under section 233(1)(a). In April 2022 the Sessions Court granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal because the charge was defective.

She then went further and brought a civil action seeking a declaration that "offensive" and "annoy" in section 233(1)(a) were unconstitutional under Articles 10 and 8.

The path through the courts:

• High Court (2023) — dismissed her challenge.
• Court of Appeal (19 August 2025) — unanimously struck down the words as unconstitutional. Justice Lee Swee Seng held the terms lacked objective standards, were overly broad, risked arbitrary enforcement, and effectively criminalised truthful speech that merely caused discomfort; a charge of offending and annoying a third party could not be construed as going against public order. The court noted section 233 remained valid for communications that are obscene, false, menacing, or made with intent to harass, abuse or threaten.
• Federal Court, 6 February 2026 — reversed.

What the Federal Court actually held in The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384: the words "offensive" and "annoy", read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a). The Court of Appeal's approach would have left a segment of online users vulnerable, because communications that were offensive with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass could then not be regulated under the CMA at all.

But — and this matters enormously — Quah won anyway. Justice Nallini Pathmanathan held that her prosecution was unwarranted, because the content of her Facebook post fell within the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1)(a) and could not form the basis of a charge under section 233(1)(a). Her acquittal was affirmed.

So the correct reading is: the provision survived; her speech was protected anyway. The judgment is authority that section 233 cannot be stretched to cover criticism of government conditions that amounts to protected expression — a meaningful practical constraint on prosecutorial reach, even though the constitutional challenge failed.

Two footnotes. During the appeal, Senior Federal Counsel Liew Horng Bin told the Federal Court that prosecutions under section 233 would cease until the appeal was disposed of — "basically, it will be status quo." And Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said in March 2026 that the government respects the decision, that there would be no further changes to section 233, and that the ministry would work with the AGC and police to scrutinise several matters highlighted by the apex court.

Critically: the Federal Court was ruling on the pre-2025 wording. The amended provision — "grossly offensive", RM500,000, two years — has still not been tested in court.

4. Fahmi Reza: what a decade of prosecutions actually produced

If you want to understand the practical risk of political satire in Malaysia, look at the person who has absorbed the most of it.

The clown caricature. Fahmi Reza posted an illustration of then-PM Najib Razak as a clown on Facebook on 8 February 2016, in protest at the Attorney-General clearing Najib. What followed:

• June 2016 — arrested under the Sedition Act over #KitaSemuaPenghasut T-shirts bearing the caricature; charged in the KL Sessions Court under s.233(1)(a); charged again in Ipoh over a parody of an MCMC warning poster
• 20 February 2018 — convicted by the Ipoh Sessions Court: one month's imprisonment and RM30,000 fine. He raised the fine by crowdfunding. Stay granted pending appeal.
• 11 October 2018 — the AGC withdrew the Kuala Lumpur charge after representations by his lawyer Syahredzan Johan; discharged.
• 5 July 2019 — the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the Ipoh conviction, a panel led by Justice Kamardin Hashim finding no merit.

Then it kept going. He was investigated over caricatures of then-Health Minister Adham Baba, including under section 500 of the Penal Code (criminal defamation) and again under section 233 in 2022. ARTICLE 19's Nalini Elumalai described it as a near-constant stream of arrests, investigations and harassment.

What the pattern tells you:

• The process is the punishment. Fahmi described more than two years of fighting a baseless prosecution before the KL charge was dropped. Whatever the outcome, you spend years and money.
• Outcomes are inconsistent. Same caricature: withdrawn in KL, convicted in Ipoh.
• Satire is not automatic immunity. He was convicted for a cartoon. CIJ's warning that satire could be caught by "grossly offensive" under the new wording is a live concern, not a theoretical one.
• Multiple provisions get used together — Sedition Act, section 233 CMA, section 500 Penal Code.

5. Rosmah v Harith Iskander: satire on trial right now

The most instructive live case, because both sides' arguments are on the public record.

The claim. Rosmah Mansor filed a writ at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 9 June 2026 through Messrs Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak, naming comedian Harith Iskander Musa. The allegation concerns his show Harith Iskander: The Outspoken Comedy Tour at the Swiss-Garden Hotel, Melaka on 17 January 2026, where she says he displayed images of Malaysian folkloric creatures — toyol, pontianak, pocong — before showing her photograph, in a routine about a driver looking into a rear-view mirror on a dark road and seeing something frightening.

She alleges body shaming, public ridicule and serious damage to reputation as the wife of Malaysia's sixth prime minister, patron of charitable organisations and recipient of honours. A letter of demand dated 6 February 2026 sought cessation, removal, an unconditional apology and retraction, an undertaking not to repeat, RM10 million in damages and costs. The suit seeks general, aggravated and exemplary damages, an injunction, and an apology published in two mainstream newspapers and on approved social media.

The defence, filed 9 July 2026, is a clinic in how to defend satire:

• The statements and visuals must be read in the full context of a 90-minute live stand-up performance — the entire routine, narrative, delivery, tone, timing, audience reactions, disclaimers and house rules
• The claim relies on two TikTok clips from an account handle, which do not represent the whole show
• Her image appeared for less than five seconds of a 90-minute show; the display was momentary, not recurring, not the main theme, and cannot be separated from the whole
• Article 10(1)(a) — the performance was artistic expression protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and a mature democracy accommodates it
• He denies the routine portrayed her as supernatural, frightening, evil, ugly, repulsive or inhumane

Why this case matters for anyone posting online. The plaintiff's case is built on clips circulating on social media. The defendant's case is that context is everything. That is precisely the dynamic that catches ordinary people: a joke that works in a room, clipped and recirculated without setup, read by a court as a bare assertion.

This case has not been decided. Do not treat either side's pleadings as findings.

6. Fair comment versus allegation of fact — the line that actually protects you

This is the practical rule, and it is the most useful thing in this article.

Comment is an expression of opinion on facts. Assertion of fact is a claim about what happened. Malaysian defamation law, inherited from English common law, treats these very differently.

The elements of fair comment, in the form Malaysian courts apply: 1. The words are comment, not an assertion of fact 2. On a matter of public interest — the conduct of a politician in office plainly qualifies 3. Based on facts that are true and either stated or sufficiently indicated 4. It is an opinion an honest person could hold on those facts 5. Not actuated by malice

Where people go wrong, consistently:

Stating a factual allegation while thinking you're giving an opinion. "In my opinion, he's corrupt" is not saved by the preamble if the reader understands you to be asserting corruption as a fact. Adding "allegedly" or "I think" does not convert an allegation into a comment.

Commenting on facts you haven't got. Fair comment requires the underlying facts to be true. If you comment on a rumour and the rumour is false, the defence fails.

Sharing. Republication is publication. Retweeting, forwarding to a WhatsApp group, or quote-posting can make you a publisher of the original statement.

Assuming public figures have no reputation to protect. Malaysian politicians sue and win. Being a public figure means their conduct in office is legitimately open to comment. It does not mean you can allege criminality without proof.

And satire specifically. Satire is not a standalone defence in Malaysian law. It may support an argument that a reasonable audience would not understand the words as factual assertions — that is Harith Iskander's contention — but it is an argument about meaning and context, not immunity. Fahmi Reza was convicted for a cartoon.

7. Sedition and the other provisions still in the toolbox

Beyond civil defamation and section 233:

Sedition Act 1948 — repeal was promised and has not happened. It was used against Fahmi Reza in 2016. Its scope includes bringing into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection against any Ruler or the Government, and it is broad and criminal.

Section 500 Penal Code — criminal defamation, up to two years' imprisonment, fine, or both. Investigated against Fahmi Reza over the Adham Baba caricatures.

Section 505 Penal Code — statements conducing to public mischief.

Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 — for print material.

The practical reality is that a single post can attract several of these at once, and the choice of which to deploy is a prosecutorial one.

What to actually do

Before you post about a politician:

• Ask: am I stating a fact, or expressing an opinion? If a fact — can you prove it, with documents, to a court's satisfaction? If not, don't state it.
• Ask: is this about their conduct in office, or about them as a person? Conduct in office is the safest ground. Appearance, family and private life are where the suits come from — the Rosmah TikTok case was about her appearance.
• Link your source. If your comment rests on a news report, cite it. Fair comment requires true underlying facts and it helps to show what you relied on.
• Screenshot and archive your sources at the time of posting. If the underlying report is later amended or removed, you will need it.
• Understand that "allegedly", "in my opinion" and "just asking questions" are not magic words.

Before you share someone else's post:

• Republication is publication. You can be sued for sharing.
• A quote-post adding your own commentary makes it more clearly yours, not less.
• WhatsApp groups are publication. So are private-ish Facebook groups.

If you receive a letter of demand:

• Do not ignore it, and do not fire off an angry reply. Both make things worse.
• Do not delete the post before taking advice — preserve everything, including your evidence for the underlying facts.
• Get a lawyer immediately. Letters of demand usually set a short deadline, and early settlement is dramatically cheaper than judgment. Harith's letter of demand preceded the writ by four months.
• Understand what is typically demanded: cessation, removal, apology, retraction, undertaking, damages and costs.

If police contact you over a post:

• You are entitled to know what provision you are being investigated under.
• Get a lawyer before giving a statement. Fahmi Reza has publicly given advice on what to do if arrested over a social media posting, and the consistent theme is not facing it alone.
• Note that prosecutions under section 233 were paused pending the Heidy Quah appeal, which has now been disposed of. Assume normal enforcement has resumed.

If you are a journalist or content creator:

• The amended section 233 has not been tested in court. Nobody knows where "grossly offensive" sits. Treat that uncertainty as risk, not as safety.
• Standing works against you on damages — the Khairy judgment held that an elevated position of trust means a greater duty to verify.
• Consider whether your organisation carries media liability insurance.