Introduction
Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which guarantees freedom of expression, is fundamental to democratic governance and civic life. Nonetheless, there has been a prolonged shrinking of the civic space, in which restrictions on speech—routinely justified in the name of security, or on ethnic and religious grounds—are widely and arbitrarily applied in Malaysia. This article examines the historical background, laws, and repressive practices that shape civil freedoms in Malaysia. It also highlights high-profile cases, challenges posed by the internet and social media, and external criticism of the country’s human rights record (Human Rights Watch, 2023; Freedom House, 2023).
Historical Background
The origin of modern repression of speech in Malaysia began with the British colonial era where anti-colonialism laws were enacted (Cheah, 2018). The communist insurgency led to the Sedition Act 1948, which criminalised any action to incite hostility and reticence of the government, royalty, or the constitution (Sedition Act 1948). Media control began with the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (“PPPA”), which granted the Minister almost absolute authority to license and revoke publications (Printing Presses and Publications Act, 1984). During the period of post-independence, ethno-religious tensions simmered and the government referred to these instruments prioritising unity rather than discontent. For instance, Operation Lalang (1987) saw more than a hundred people arrested under the Internal Security Act (“ISA”) and several newspapers were forced to stay silent, marking an inflection point in media suppression (Human Rights Watch, 2023).
Legal Suppressing of Civic Space
3.1 Sedition Act 1948
The 1948 Act continues to be the focal point of Malaysia’s speech repression system (Sedition Act 1948). In 2015, the Parliament extended its scope of application to include social media content and the criticism of religion, to limit judicial discretion in sentencing (UN Human Rights Council, 2015). 91 seditious investigations were opened in 2015 alone—five times the number of the previous five decades (Amnesty International, 2015). Highly challenged court cases, such as those presented by Professor Azmi Sharom, did not succeed, as the Federal Court stated that the Act was consistent with the Constitution despite international rules of law (Malaysian Federal Court, 2015). Furthermore, there have been prosecutions against other ordinary citizens. Another example is the J. Gopinath case, wherein the Facebook, now Meta, user was penalised for a post presumed to offend Islam, whereas in another case, a high-school student was questioned simply for following an orthodox blog (Human Rights Watch, 2023). This demonstrates the vague and arbitrary scope of the law.
3.2 Publications Printing Presses Act of 1984
Self-censorship of the traditional media has been institutionalised through the PPPA, which allows media to operate at the discretion of the Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (Printing Presses and Publications Act, 1984). It includes an ouster clause that seeks to exclude judicial review, a measure criticised as detrimental to constitutional checks and balances, although the courts have occasionally encroached upon this claimed immunity (Cheah, 2018).
3.3 Computer Mischief Acts 2002, Section 233
Section 233 allows authorities to punish any offensive or false content on the Internet (Communications and Multimedia Act, 1998). Between 2009 and mid-2024, the Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”) recorded 3,077 cases; 151 of them were brought to court, ending in fines for false or indecent posts (MCMC, 2024). Between 2018 and 2023 alone, 876 cases were flagged, of which 65 charges were made. In 2024, the government also introduced an ethical code for journalists and suggested a media council to address online offences (MCMC, 2024). Platforms with at least eight million users are required to obtain an operating license, providing further evidence of increasing scrutiny over online content (Freedom House, 2023).
-
Digital surveillance and media censorship
4.1 Managed Media Front
Press freedom in Malaysia declined sharply in early 2024, with the country dropping 34 points to reach 107th place in the Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders, 2024). Free media sources such as Malaysiakini were fined due to readers’ comments deemed contemptuous, and faced raids and police investigations (International Federation of Journalists, 2021).
4.2 Policing in the Social Media
In the first half of 2024, the state flagged 51,638 items of harmful content to platforms such as Meta and TikTok, a massive increase compared to the previous year (MCMC, 2024). Meta removed 85 to 88 percent of flagged content; TikTok removed 76 percent. The government attempted, unsuccessfully, to reroute web traffic through local Domain Name System (“DNS”) to impose blocklists of content, a plan shelved due to censorship concerns (Freedom House, 2023). Under voluntary content codes, the MCMC blocked over 10,000 websites between 2022 and 2024, including gambling, child exploitation, and scam sites (MCMC, 2024).
5. Harassment of Activists and Civil Society
The harassment of activists and civil society organisations (“CSOs”) in Malaysia has been a persistent issue, rooted in a political environment that conflates dissent with instability. Authorities often invoke laws such as the Sedition Act 1948, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”), and the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (“PAA”) to justify investigations, arrests, and prosecutions of individuals advocating for political reform, human rights, or environmental protection (Amnesty International, 2023). These measures create a climate of fear, where civil society actors are deterred from criticising the government or mobilising for reform.
One high-profile case illustrating this dynamic is the repeated harassment of activists from Bersih 2.0, a coalition advocating for clean and fair elections. Several of its leaders have been summoned for police questioning or faced charges for organising peaceful rallies (Human Rights Watch, 2022). Similarly, climate activists have faced restrictions when attempting to organise environmental protests, with authorities citing “public order” concerns (CIVICUS Monitor, 2023).
The harassment extends beyond legal action to include online intimidation, smear campaigns, and surveillance. Activists have reported receiving threats on social media platforms after criticising government policies, with little protection from law enforcement. This creates a “double pressure”: legal risks in the offline sphere and hostility in the digital space, both of which undermine the operational capacity of CSOs (Freedom House, 2023).
The consequences are severe – not only is the ability of CSOs to operate constrained, but international donors and partners may be discouraged from supporting Malaysian organisations due to the perceived legal and reputational risks. This isolation further shrinks civic space and weakens democratic resilience.
6. Restrictions on Media Freedom
Media freedom in Malaysia is curtailed by a combination of restrictive legislation, economic pressures, and political influence over newsrooms. While the government repealed the Anti-Fake News Act 2018 in December 2019, similar restrictions were reintroduced under emergency ordinances during the COVID-19 pandemic, granting authorities the power to penalise “false information” with fines and imprisonment (Reporters Without Borders, 2023). The vague definition for false information enables selective enforcement against critical reporting.
Independent journalists often face self-censorship due to fear of reprisals. Investigative reporting into topics such as corruption, environmental degradation, or police misconduct can lead to police summons under the CMA or the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, 2023). For example, Malaysiakini, a leading independent news portal, was fined RM500,000 in 2021 after readers’ comments on its website were deemed contemptuous towards the judiciary – a ruling criticised by international observers as a disproportionate restriction on press freedom (International Federation of Journalists, 2021).
Foreign media outlets are also affected. Several international journalists have been denied entry to Malaysia or had their visas revoked after publishing investigative reports on sensitive topics, particularly those involving government-linked companies (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2022). This not only limits the diversity of information available to the public but also weakens Malaysia’s global reputation regarding transparency.
7. International Criticism and Obligations under Human Rights Law
International human rights organisations, foreign governments, as well as non-governmental organisations, have continually criticised limitations of the civic space in Malaysia.
Malaysia, as a State Party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), and in its capacity as a United Nations (“UN”) Member State, is obliged to uphold fundamental freedoms under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”). While Malaysia has not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), its principles are considered part of customary international law.
During Malaysia’s Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) at the UN Human Rights Council in 2023, several Member States repeatedly urged the country to review and amend restrictive laws, such as the Sedition Act and the CMA (OHCHR, 2023). Member States recommended that the government create an enabling and safe environment for human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society actors. However, rights groups criticised the government’s partial acceptance of these recommendations, noting the absence of clear timelines for implementing reforms. At the regional level, bodies such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (“ASEAN”) and the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (“AICHR”) have limited capacity to exert pressure due to ASEAN’s principle of non-interference. Nevertheless, persistent perceptions of repression may harm Malaysia’s international reputation, potentially influencing trade negotiations, foreign investment, and bilateral cooperation.
8. Recommendations and Way Forward
can be done through structural legal reforms on the one hand and practical steps to defend the rights of activists, journalists, and ordinary people on the other hand. A roadmap in terms of enacting international human rights standards, the recommendations made below present guidance toward progress:
-
Repeal or Substantially Amend Restrictive Laws
Malaysia should focus on repealing or completely reforming the Sedition Act, the CMA and articles of the PAA that enforce arbitrary limits on peaceable assembly. Such reforms should comply with Article 19 and Article 21 of the ICCPR so that restrictions on the freedom of expression and assembly are reasonable, requisite and common (UN Human Rights Committee, 2011).
-
Strengthen Institutional Independence
Media regulatory bodies and the judiciary must be insulated from political influence to guarantee impartiality in cases involving expression and assembly. An independent press council, composed of journalists, editors, and civil society representatives, could serve as a self-regulatory mechanism, reducing the risk of government overreach.
-
Enhance Protection for Human Rights Defenders
Malaysia should develop and implement a national protection mechanism for human rights defenders, drawing on the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (1998). This could include legal immunity for actions conducted within the scope of legitimate human rights work, as well as rapid response systems for threats and harassment.
-
Promote Media Literacy and Digital Rights
Civil society and the government should collaborate to promote digital literacy campaigns that empower citizens to critically evaluate information without resorting to censorship. This approach balances the need to combat misinformation with the protection of free speech.
-
Ratify the ICCPR and Other Core Human Rights Treaties
Formal accession to the ICCPR would not only reinforce Malaysia’s international commitments but also provide a legal framework for citizens to hold the state accountable for violations of freedom of expression, assembly, and association.
-
Foster Regional Cooperation
-
Through ASEAN and bilateral partnerships, Malaysia could participate in peer-learning initiatives on protecting civic space, drawing lessons from countries in the region that have implemented progressive reforms.
The successful implementation of these recommendations would require political will, sustained advocacy from civil society, and constructive engagement with international partners. However, the benefits are substantial: a more vibrant civic space, enhanced democratic legitimacy, and strengthened public trust in institutions.
Bibliography
Amnesty International. (2016). Malaysia: End unprecedented crackdown on hundreds of critics through Sedition Act. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2016/03/malaysia-end-unprecedented-crackdown-on-hundreds-of-critics-through-sedition-act/.
Article 19. (2015). Malaysia: Sedition Act upheld in further blow to free expression. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.article19.org/resources/malaysia-sedition-act-upheld-in-further-blow-to-free-expression/.
CIVICUS. (2023). Malaysia: Use of restrictive laws and harassment of protesters persists… Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/malaysia-use-of-restrictive-laws-and-harassment-of-protesters-persists-under-new-government-despite-reform-commitments/.
Freedom House. (2023). Freedom on the Net 2023: Malaysia. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://freedomhouse.org/country/malaysia/freedom-net/2023.
Human Rights Watch. (2021). Malaysia: Free expression under attack. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/19/malaysia-free-expression-under-attack.
Human Rights Watch. (2023). World Report 2023: Malaysia. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/malaysia.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2023). Universal Periodic Review: Malaysia. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/my-index.
Reuters. (2024, April 9). Malaysia reports an increase in requests to restrict social media content. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.reuters.com/technology/malaysia-reports-increase-requests-restrict-social-media-content-2024-04-09/.
Reuters. (2025, January 2). Malaysia grants WeChat, TikTok licences to operate under new law. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.reuters.com/technology/malaysia-grants-wechat-tiktok-licences-operate-under-new-law-2025-01-02/.
Reuters. (2024, September 8). Malaysia shelves web traffic re-routing plan after censorship concerns. Retrieved August 14, 2025, from https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/malaysia-defends-web-traffic-re-routing-plan-against-online-censorship-concerns-2024-09-08/.
