Consti Re-review: Episode 11 - The Line Between Freedom of Expression and Cyberbullying

Dear Readers, we are pleased to introduce the inaugural instalment of the Consti Re-Review into the Law Series. Over the years, our team has covered a vast array of constitutional themes. However, the legal landscape is far from static.

This new initiative is dedicated to revisiting and critically analysing  the previously written articles in the law series. The goal is not merely to look back, but to assess the contemporary relevance of these past works.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this Consti Re-Review, we revisit the Law Series Episode 11: The Line Between Freedom of Expression and Cyberbullying, with fresh eyes.

The Law Series Episode 11 provides a deep analysis of the legal frictions surrounding freedom of speech in Malaysia’s digital sphere. It highlights the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution^[1], juxtaposing these fundamental liberties against a restrictive legislative apparatus that included the Sedition Act 1948^[2], the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998^[3] and the transient Emergency (Essential Powers) (No. 2) Ordinance 2021^[4]. At the time of its publication, the narrative was dominated by a palpable legislative lacuna regarding specific anti-cyberbullying provisions, a gap that left victims of digital harassment with limited recourse outside of generalised statutes.

However, the political and regulatory landscape has evolved significantly ever since. The revocation of emergency laws,^[5] the transition of administration and the sustained public debate about online rights and safety have necessitated a critical re-review of the original analysis.

II. SEDITION ACT 1948

A.The Previous Perspective: A Tool of Political Suppression

In the previous article, the Sedition Act 1948^[6] was characterised not merely as an archaic colonial relic but as a revitalised weapon of the state.The article highlighted a disturbing trend under the Perikatan National administration, where the Act was aggressively utilised to stifle dissent. The documentation of 24 sedition cases in a single year, including investigations against social activist Fadiah Nadwa Fikri and journalists Al Jazeera, painted a picture of a government using ‘seditious tendency’ as a blunt instrument to silence critics.^[7]

The previous article relied heavily on the hope sparked by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kerajaann Malaysia v. Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei,^[8] which had declared the strict liability clause unconstitutional, a ruling that was subsequently overturned by the Federal Court. However, looking back from 2025, it is clear that the legal landscape has not evolved in the linear path of reform that many had hoped for. Instead, it has entered a complex state of stagnation and renewed constitutional conflict.

B. The Unenforced Amendment: Status of the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015

A critical contradiction that must be addressed is the phantom existence of the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015.^[9] For years, there has been a widespread misconception among the public that the Parliament had successfully decriminalised criticism of the government by removing Section 3(1)(a) of the principal Act^[10], the provision criminalising acts with a tendency ‘to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Government’, and Section 3(1)(c)^[11] which would bring hatred against the administration of justice in Malaysia.^[12]

The reality in 2025 is that this Amendment remains a ‘zombie legislation’. Although it received Royal Assent, the Minister has never gazetted the date for it to come into operation. Consequently, the removal of both Sections have not taken legal effect.^[13]Technically, under the black letter of the law, criticising the government remains a seditious offence just as it was in 1948.

Despite this legislative inertia, the enforcement landscape has shifted toward a targeted administrative approach. The current administration has been mulling a new prosecutorial policy to impose civil penalties on those who play up sentiments regarding ‘3R’ offences, namely race, religion and royalty.^[14] However, this remains a policy on the horizon and the state has instead chosen to sharpen its existing tools.^[15] While this suggests a self-imposed restraint, the retention of the original text means that such restraint is merely discretionary, not legally binding.

C. Strict Liability: The Constitutional Challenge to Section 3(3)

The most contentious aspect of the Act is Section 3(3),^[16] which enforces absolute liability by stating that the intention of the person charged is irrelevant if the words used are found to have a ‘seditious tendency’. The previous review cited the Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei case^[17], noting that the Court of Appeal declared this section unconstitutional for disproportionately restricting freedom of speech. However, the narrative must be corrected as this decision was subsequently overturned by the Federal Court, reinstating Section 3(3) as valid law. This reversal cemented the position that sedition is an absolute liability offence.^[18]

However, this settled position is now facing a renewed challenge. In 2024, the constitutional challenge mounted by former Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin brought this issue back to the forefront. Arising from a speech made during the Nenggiri by-election, he was charged under Section 4(1) for questioning the discretion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.^[19] Unlike previous cases which focused on factual disputes, the defence mounted a constitutional challenge, arguing that criminalising a speech based solely on its ‘tendency’, while ignoring the speaker’s intent to seek factual clarification, is a violation of the proportionality principle under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution.^[20]

In August 2025, the High Court granted leave to refer these constitutional questions to the Federal Court.^[21] This referral is significant because the Federal Court is now tasked with answering a question that has plagued Malaysian jurisprudence for decades: Can a democracy truly exist if the intentions of its citizens are deemed irrelevant by the state? Until this verdict is delivered, the Sedition Act 1948 remains a potent, albeit legally contested, tool of control.

III. COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT (CMA) 1998

A. The Previous Position: The ‘Invincible’ Section 233

In the previous article, Section 233 of the CMA 1998^[22] was portrayed as the government’s primary mechanism to curb fake news and insulate public figures from criticism, effectively serving as a catch-all provision where freedom of speech was conditional upon not being ‘offensive’ or ‘annoying’. For years, this section provided authorities with the discretion to punish online dissent.^[23] However, in 2025, a landmark judicial decision fundamentally challenged this status quo.

B. The Judicial Victory: Heidy Quah Gaik Li v. Kerajaan Malaysia [2025] MLJU 2677

1. Case Background

The case originated from a Facebook post by activist Heidy Quah during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, where she highlighted the alleged mistreatment of refugees at immigration depots. Following a police report, she was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA 1998, facing potential imprisonment for speech that the authorities deemed offensive ^[24]

Although the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in April 2022 due to a defective charge, Heidy Quah pursued a civil constitutional challenge via an Originating Summons. She filed an action before the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 233. The High Court dismissed her application, relying on earlier precedents like Syarul Ema Rena binti Abu Samah lwn Pendakwa Raya^[25]. This led to the appeal and the decision in Heidy Quah.

2. The Court of Appeal Judgement

On 19 August 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered a unanimous judgment declaring that Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA 1998, specifically the criminalisation of ‘offensive’ online statements made with the intent to ‘annoy’ was unconstitutional.^[26]

In striking down these words, the Court of Appeal held that Section 233 violated Article 8^[27] which guarantees the right to equality and Article 10^[28] which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression under the Federal Constitution. The Court reasoned that the terms ‘offensive’ and ‘annoy’ are subjective. A law cannot wrongly assume society has a uniform standard for what annoys. The lack of objective standards renders the provision susceptible to arbitrary enforcement.^[29] Also, criminalising mere annoyance does not fall under the permissible restrictions of ‘public order’ in Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, as it concerns individual sensibilities and does not rise to the threshold of threatening public order.^[30]

This judgment signaled a major judicial shift towards requiring clarity and proportionality and enhanced protection for truthful expression within Malaysia’s content regulation regime. It also sets the stage for challenging unclear content-related offenses, potentially increasing judicial scrutiny on online freedom of expression.

C. Federal Court Intervention and Legislative Amendments

While the Heidy Quah decision was a victory for civil liberties, the legal reality remains complex due to two subsequent developments: the Federal Court’s intervention and Parliament’s legislative amendments.

The government immediately appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision. In November 2025, the Federal Court granted the government leave to appeal, contingent upon a formal undertaking to the court. Under this arrangement, the government committed to a moratorium on all prosecutions under Section 233 nationwide, ensuring the status quo is preserved while the law’s validity is in limbo.^[31] Consequently, the legal victory is currently in abeyance. The constitutionality of the section remains technically unsettled until the apex court rules.

While the courts debated the old law, the Communications and Multimedia (Amendment) Act 2025 was passed and came into force in February 2025.^[32] The amendment includes the term ‘offensive’ being replaced with the higher threshold of ‘grossly offensive,’ and the element of ‘intent to annoy’ has been removed. The revised Section 233(1)(a) now specifies ‘grossly offensive with the intention to annoy or harass or commit an offence involving fraud or dishonesty’ rather than simply ‘offensive’ communication.^[33]

The amendment also introduced ‘Explanation 6’ which attempts to define ‘grossly offensive.’ It explicitly includes expletives, profanities, hate speech and violence. Notably, communications made in good faith, supported by facts and opinions, are exempt from being considered grossly offensive. This provision particularly impacts posts in the form of satire or parody, previously subject to legal repercussions for misinformation.

While the language was ostensibly tightened, the penalties introduced were simultaneously increased. The fine for offences under this section has increased tenfold, from RM50,000 to RM500,000. Also, the maximum jail term has been raised from one year to two years.^[34] Therefore, while the Heidy Quah case represents a judicial attempt to dismantle the invincible nature of the CMA 1998, the legislative response suggests that the government is intent on maintaining strict control over online discourse, albeit under new terminology and heavier sentencing guidelines.

IV.  PENAL CODE

A. The Digital Lacuna: Psychological Harm

In the previous article, a significant portion of it was dedicated to the tragedy of a 16-year-old girl in Sarawak who committed suicide after an Instagram poll.^[35] At that time, a glaring lacuna was identified in our legal framework. There was no specific provision to prosecute the ‘netizens’ who cast that fatal vote due to a lack of proof of identity or a clear intention to kill the victim. Authorities were forced to rely on vague provisions like Section 504^[36] and Section 505(b) of the Penal Code,^[37] neither of which carried penalties severe enough to match the gravity of a lost life. Tragically, the Malaysian legal system was said to be built for physical threats, not the psychological aspect of the digital age.

B. The Catalyst: The Tragedy of Rajeswary Appahu (Esha case)

Fast forward to 2025, the urgency to close this gap reached a boiling point when it came to the death of Malaysian social media influencer Rajeswary Appahu, known as ‘Esha’, who committed suicide due to prolonged cyberbullying, sexual harassment and intimidation.^[38] The aftermath of her death drew widespread public anger similar to the Sarawak case.

The limitations of the old laws were once again exposed when one of her tormentors was charged under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955,^[39] which is a law designed for minor public disturbances, for deliberately uttering vulgarities to incite anger and disturb peace through her TikTok account. Upon pleading guilty, the court imposed the maximum fine under that section which was up to a mere RM100.^[40] This incident became the tipping point of cyber bully law reform as the government acknowledged that the existing legal framework has weaknesses and needed amendments to protect victims of cyber-harassment. ^[41]

C. The Legislative Response

In response to the tragedy, the Parliament passed the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025^[42] or colloquially known as the ‘Esha Clause’, which came into force on 11 July 2025. This legislation represents a paradigm shift in how Malaysia defines harm and attempts to close the gap between digital actions and real-world consequences.^[43] The Amendments introduce a new suite of provisions from Sections 507B to 507G, criminalising the mechanisms of cyberbullying.

1. Section 507B: The General Offence of Cyberbullying

Section 507B^[44] addresses the general act of cyberbullying, moving beyond the ‘breach of peace’ requirement of the old Section 504. It makes it a criminal offence for any person to use ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or communication’ with the intent to cause harassment, distress, fear or alarm to another person. The punishment is imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both.

2. Section 507C: The ‘Likelihood’ Standard

A critical modern addition is Section 507C,^[45] which lowers the threshold for intent. It criminalises conduct where a person uses words or behaviour that they ‘knew or ought to have known’ would be likely to cause harassment, distress, fear or alarm.^[46]This closes the loophole where trolls claim they were ‘just joking’ or did not intend to harm. If a reasonable person foresees the distress, the perpetrator is liable and will face imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.

3. Section 507D(2): The ‘Esha Clause’

The most crucial update for this review is Section 507D(2),^[47] often referred to as the ‘Esha Clause’. This section directly answers the previous concern about accountability for suicide. It states that if a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words with the intent to provoke another person to harm themselves, or knowing that such words are likely to do so, they are criminally liable. Crucially, if the victim subsequently attempts to commit suicide or commits suicide as a result of that provocation, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.

             Had this law existed during the Sarawak case, the ‘netizens’ who encouraged the victim to commit suicide could have been liable under this section as her behaviour was encouraged by the voting result. This provision solves the ‘physicality gap’ and the difficulty of proving abetment under Section 305^[48], fairly placing the liability on those who incite self-harm.

D. Case Study in Application: The Zara Qairina Mahathir Tragedy

To fully understand the practical application of these new Penal Code amendments, we must examine the tragic case of Zara Qairina Mahathir, which occurred in July, just days after the new laws came into force. This case serves as a critical litmus test for the new legislative framework and illustrates the remaining evidentiary hurdles.

Zara Qairina, a 13-year-old Form One student, was found unconscious near a drain after falling from the third floor of her school dormitory. She succumbed to her injuries the following day. While initial reports classified it as a sudden death, public outcry and allegations of a cover-up forced an exhumation and a re-investigation, which revealed a history of severe bullying by senior students.^[49]

This case provides an excellent tutorial on prosecutorial discretion in the new era. Despite public demand for the accused to be charged with causing death, the five teenage suspects were charged under Section 507C(1) of the Penal Code,^[50] using threatening or abusive words, which carries a maximum of one year imprisonment.^[51] The students were not charged under the new ‘Esha Clause’ (Section 507D) which carries 10 years imprisonment for abetting suicide.^[52] Lawyers argued that if the teens plead guilty to Section 507C(1), which is a lesser charge, they could not later be charged under Section 507D(2), a more serious offence, due to the double jeopardy clause under Article 7(2) of the Federal Constitution.^[53] However, the AGC stated that the conviction under Section 507D(2) is speculative and not supported by concrete facts, as so the preference of conviction to students shall be under Section 507C(1).^[54]

V. THE COMPLEMENTARY POLICIES

A. The Online Safety Act 2025

While the Penal Code targets the individual perpetrator, the Online Safety Act (‘OSA’) 2025^[55] targets the platforms, where it imposes systemic responsibilities on digital service providers. The OSA aims to ensure platform safety, to protect children under 13 and also to restrict access to harmful content, which indirectly restricts cyberbullying contents and to avoid platform negligence.^[56]It imposes statutory duties on Application Service Providers (ASPs) and Content Application Service Providers (CASPs) to take measures against ‘harmful content’.^[57] This is codified in Section 18 of the OSA,^[58] creating a duty of care to protect the online safety of child users.

             The definition of ‘harmful content’ in the First Schedule of the Act is expansive and critically important for any re-review of freedom of expression. It includes, inter alia, content that is obscene or indecent, threatening, inciting violence or terrorism and content likely to induce a child to self-harm.^[59] Child sexual abuse material and financial scams are distinguished as ‘priority harmful content’. For these categories, the obligations for removal are more stringent, requiring rapid takedowns and proactive filtering. In ensuring these duties enhance accountability among service providers, 10 subsidiary regulations are in the pipeline to regulate online harm.^[60] These duties provide user guidelines, reporting mechanisms and user assistance.

B. The Anti-Bullying Bill 2025

On 3 December 2025, the Dewan Rakyat passed the Anti-Bullying Bill 2025.^[61] This legislation represents the final pillar of Malaysia’s new safety architecture, shifting the focus from purely punitive measures to restorative justice and civil remedies.^[62]

The most revolutionary feature of this Bill is the establishment of an Anti-Bullying Tribunal. Previously, victims of bullying had to file a police report or a civil lawsuit, both of which are slow, expensive and intimidating for children. The Tribunal is a specialised body with civil jurisdiction to hear complaints rapidly. It empowers the Tribunal to order the respondent to pay compensation damages of up to RM250,000 for the physical or emotional loss suffered by the victim.^[63] This creates a financial consequence for bullying that does not rely on the high burden of proof required in criminal court.

Reflecting a ‘prevention-first’ philosophy, the Bill introduces vicarious accountability. Recognising that child behaviour often stems from the home environment, the Tribunal can order parents or guardians of the bully to pay the compensation on behalf of the minor and attend mandatory counselling or parenting support sessions.^[64] This marks a paradigm shift from simply punishing the child to rehabilitating the family unit.

    Students need to note the current scope of the Bill. As passed in December 2025, the law applies primarily to educational institutions and covers individuals aged 18 and below.^[65] However, the Minister has already indicated that the government intends to study the effectiveness of this mechanism in 2026 before potentially expanding it to cover higher education institutions and workplace bullying.^[66]

VI. CONCLUSION

This re-review of Episode 11 demonstrates that the law governing freedom of expression in Malaysia is currently in a state of flux. We have moved from a period of static colonial reliance to an era of rapid, albeit contested, legislative drafting. The swift enactment of the Penal Code amendments and the Anti-Bullying Bill 2025 proves that Parliament is capable of responsiveness when the social cost—measured in human lives like Esha’s—becomes too high to ignore.

Yet, the constitutional validity of this new regime remains unsettled. The dichotomy between the Court of Appeal’s progressive stance in Heidy Quah and the Federal Court’s conservative precedent in Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei creates a jurisprudential deadlock. We are currently in an interregnum: the old strict liability standards of the Sedition Act are being challenged by new arguments on proportionality, while the new definitions of ‘grossly offensive’ in the CMA wait to be tested against the standards of Article 10.

Therefore, the conclusion of this chapter is not final. The ‘line’ between freedom of expression and cyberbullying has not been drawn in permanent ink; it is being negotiated in real-time. The coming rulings from the Federal Court regarding the intent requirement in sedition and the constitutionality of Section 233 will determine whether Malaysia’s legal framework will mature into a democracy that values intent and context, or regress into a system of liability and silence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

^[1] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 10.

^[2] Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) (Malaysia).

^[3] Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) (Malaysia).

^[4] Emergency (Essential Powers) (No. 2) Ordinance 2021 (P.U. (A) 101/2021).

^[5] Ida Lim. (2021, Oct 4). Now That Malaysia’s Emergency Has Ended, Are Ordinances Such as the RM10,000 Fine Still Enforceable? Malay Mail. Retrieved from <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/10/04/now-that-malaysias-emergency-has-ended-are-ordinances-such-as-the-rm10000-f/2010500>. Site accessed on 13 December 2025.

^[6] Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) (Malaysia).

^[7] Suaram. (2022). Malaysia Human Rights Report 2021. Retrieved from <https://www.suaram.net/_files/ugd/359d16_a65ec707b2c745bd8f4aeb7630a3f2fb.pdf>. Site accessed on 17 December 2025.

^[8] Kerajaan Malaysia v Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei [2018] 2 MLJ 133.

^[9] Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 (Act A1485) (Malaysia).

^[10] Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) (Malaysia) s 3(1)(a).

^[11] Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) (Malaysia) s 3(1)(c).

^[12] Nilam Nur Atikah Oshman. (2023, Sep 8). Rectify the Error in the Sedition Act 1948 – Musa Hassan. Sinar Daily Malaysia. Retrieved from <https://www.sinardaily.my/article/207301/focus/national/rectify-the-error-in-the-sedition-act-1948---musa-hassan#:~:text=By%20NILAM%20NUR%20ATIKAH%20OSHMAN,contain%20the%202015%20Amendment%20Act .>. Site accessed on 12 December 2025.

^[13] Aliran. (2024, Dec 7). U-Turn on Repeal of Sedition Act Unacceptable. Retrieved from <https://m.aliran.com/civil-society-voices/u-turn-on-repeal-of-sedition-act-unacceptable#:~:text=In%20Malaysia%2C%20the%20Sedition%20(Amendment,%2Dled%20%E2%80%9Cunity%20government%E2%80%9D. >. Site accessed on 8 October 2025.

^[14] Channel News Asia. (2023, Jul 13). Malaysia Mulls New Law to Impose Civil Penalties Against Those Playing Up Race, Religion and Royalty Rhetorics. Retrieved from <https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-kedah-selangor-act-civil-penalties-race-religion-royalty-rhetorics-insult-ruler-3626251 >. Site accessed on 21 December 2025.

^[15] Malay Mail. (2023, Nov 7). Minister: Sedition Act, Communications and Multimedia Act Sufficient to Address 3R Issue. Retrieved from <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/11/07/minister-sedition-act-communications-and-multimedia-act-sufficient-to-address-3r-issue/100760>. Site accessed on 21 December 2025.

^[16] Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) (Malaysia) s 3(3).

^[17] Kerajaan Malaysia v Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei [2018] 2 MLJ 133.

^[18] Kerajaan Malaysia v Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei [2018] 2 MLJ 133.

^[19] Sadho Ram. (2024, Aug 27). Muhyiddin Charged With Sedition For His Remarks Against The Former Agong. SAYS. Retrieved from <https://says.com/my/news/muhyiddin-charged-with-sedition-for-his-remarks-against-the-former-agong >. Site accessed on 21 December 2025.

^[20] Tarani Palani. (2025, Aug 28). Muhyiddin Allowed to Refer Questions of Law Linked to Sedition Act to Apex Court. AmerBon. Retrieved from <https://www.amerbon.com/media/muhyiddin-allowed-to-refer-questions-of-law-linked-to-sedition-act >. Site accessed on 10 December 2025; Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 10(2)(a).

^[21] Tarani Palani. (2025, Aug 28). Muhyiddin Allowed to Refer Questions of Law Linked to Sedition Act to Apex Court. AmerBon. Retrieved from <https://www.amerbon.com/media/muhyiddin-allowed-to-refer-questions-of-law-linked-to-sedition-act >. Site accessed on 10 December 2025.

^[22] Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) (Malaysia) s 233.

^[23] Nuradzimmah Daim. (2020, April 26). 238 Investigation Papers Opened on Covid-19-related Fake News Cases. New Straits Times. Retrieved from <https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2020/04/587644/238-investigation-papers-opened-covid-19-related-fake-news-cases >. Site accessed on 16 December 2025; FMT Reporters. (2021, April 30). Fahmi Reza Summoned by Cops Again Over 2 New Cases. Free Malaysia Today. Retrieved from <https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/04/30/fahmi-reza-summoned-by-cops-again-over-2-new-cases>. Site accessed on 16 December 2025.

^[24] Heidy Quah Gaik Li v Kerajaan Malaysia [2025] MLJU 2677.

^[25] Syarul Ema Rena binti Abu Samah lwn Pendakwa Raya [2018] MLJU 1128.

^[26] Rahmat Khairulrijal. (2025, August 19). Court Strikes Down ‘Offensive’ and ‘Annoy’ in Online Law. New Straits Times. Retrieved from <https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2025/08/1262418/court-strikes-down-offensive-and-annoy-online-law >. Site accessed on 7 October 2025; Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) (Malaysia) s 233(1)(a).

^[27] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 8.

^[28] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 10.

^[29] Ida Lim. (2025, Aug 19). Malaysia Still Criminalises ‘Grossly Offensive’ Online Remarks, But Here’s Why Today’s Ruling on ‘Offensive’ Speech was Lauded. Yahoo News. Retrieved from <https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-still-criminalises-grossly-offensive-082209285.html?guccounter=1 >. Site accessed on 10 December 2025.

^[30] Ida Lim. (2025, Aug 19). Malaysia Still Criminalises ‘Grossly Offensive’ Online Remarks, But Here’s Why Today’s Ruling on ‘Offensive’ Speech was Lauded. Yahoo News. Retrieved from <https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-still-criminalises-grossly-offensive-082209285.html?guccounter=1 >. Site accessed on 10 December 2025.

^[31] Nurbaiti Hamdan. (2025, Nov 13). Govt Gets Leave to Appeal Ruling on Section 233 of Communications and Multimedia Act. The Star. Retrieved from <https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/11/13/federal-court-grants-leave-to-appeal-on-section-233-ruling-in-heidy-quah-case >. Site accessed on 8 December 2025.

^[32] Malay Mail. (2025, Feb 11). Stricter Online Safety Laws Kick In: Amendments to Communications Act Now in Force. Retrieved from <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/02/11/stricter-online-safety-laws-kick-in-amendments-to-communications-act-now-in-force/166325>. Site accessed on 9 December 2025; Communications and Multimedia (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act 588) (Malaysia).

^[33] Skrine. (2024, Dec 6). Amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Tabled for First Reading. Retrieved from <https://www.skrine.com/insights/alerts/december-2024/amendments-to-the-communications-and-multimedia-ac >. Site accessed on 10 December 2025.

^[34] Law Partnership. (2025, Mar 4). Key Updates to the Communications and Multimedia (Amendment) Act 2025 and Recommendations for Industry Preparedness. Retrieved from <https://law-partnership.com/key-updates-to-the-communications-and-multimedia-amendment-act-2025-and-recommendations-for-industry-preparedness/ >. Site accessed on 9 December 2025.

^[35] Tang. T. (2019, May 14). A Sarawak Teen Jumps to Death Hours After Asking Instagram Friends If She Should Kill Self. Malay Mail. Retrieved from <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/05/14/sarawak-teen-jumps-to-death-hours-after-asking-instagram-friends-if-she-sho/1752868 >. Site accessed on 11 December 2025.

^[36] Penal Code (Act 574) (Malaysia) s 504.

^[37] Penal Code (Act 574) (Malaysia) s 505(b).

^[38] Aqil Haziq Mahmud. (2024, July 20). Family of Malaysian TikToker Esha who died in Cyberbullying Case Seeking Legal Advice After Offender Fined RM100. Channel News Asia. Retrieved from <https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-esha-rajeswary-appahu-cyberbullying-suicide-tiktok-alphaquinnsha-4490761>. Site accessed on 11 December 2025.

^[39] Minor Offences Act 1955 (Act 336) (Malaysia) s 14.

^[40] Aqil Haziq Mahmud. (2024, July 20). Family of Malaysian TikToker Esha who died in cyberbullying case seeking legal advice after offender fined RM100. Channel News Asia. Retrieved from <https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-esha-rajeswary-appahu-cyberbullying-suicide-tiktok-alphaquinnsha-4490761>. Site accessed on 11 December 2025.

^[41] Channel News Asia. (2024, July 10). Death of Malaysian Influencer Following Alleged Cyberbullying: Woman Arrested as Minister Warns Against Negative ‘Culture’. Retrieved from <https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-esha-rajeswary-appahu-cyberbullying-tiktok-social-media-death-4466926 >. Site accessed on 9 December 2025.

^[42] Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act A1750) (Malaysia).

^[43] R. Sekaran. (2025, Aug 11). Penal Code Amended to Combat Online Harassment and Bullying, Says Azalina. The Star. Retrieved from <https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/08/11/govt-amends-penal-code-to-combat-online-harassment-and-bullying >. Site accessed on 9 December 2025.

^[44] Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act A1750) (Malaysia) s 507B.

^[45] Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act A1750) (Malaysia) s 507C.

^[46] Siow Chan Wai, Shawn. (2025, Aug 18). Legal Update: Hidden Cost of Silence – Bullies in Suit Met Malaysia’s New Penal Code. YK Wong & Partners. Retrieved from <https://www.ykwong.com.my/legal-update-hidden-cost-of-silence-bullies-in-suit-met-malaysias-new-penal-code/ >. Site accessed on 9 December 2025.

^[47] Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act A1750) (Malaysia) s 507D(2).

^[48] Penal Code (Act 574) (Malaysia) s 305.

^[49] Ida Lim. (2025, Aug 10). Was It Bullying? Was It Worse? The Zara Qairina Mystery Gripping Malaysia. Malay Mail. Retrieved from<https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/08/10/was-it-bullying-was-it-worse-the-zara-qairina-mystery-gripping-malaysia/187034>. Site accessed on 12 December 2025.

^[50] Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act A1750) (Malaysia) s 507C(1).

^[51] Bernama. (2025, Aug 20). Zara Qairina Case Marks First Prosecution Under Newly Amended Penal Code – Saifuddin. Retrieved from <https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2458875 >. Site accessed on 13 December 2025.

^[52] The Star. (19 August 2025) Five teens to be charged with bullying Zara Qairina, not causing her death, says AGC. Retrieved from <https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/08/19/five-teens-to-be-charged-with-bullying-zara-qairina-not-causing-her-death-says-agc> Site accessed 19 August 2025.

^[53] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) art 7(2).

^[54] The Malaysian Reserve. (2025, Aug 19). AGC: Prosecution of Five Teens Related Only to Bullying, Not to Death of Zara Qairina. Retrieved from <https://themalaysianreserve.com/2025/08/19/agc-prosecution-of-five-teens-related-only-to-bullying-not-to-death-of-zara-qairina/>. Site accessed on 19 December 2025.

^[55] Online Safety Act 2025 (Act 866) (Malaysia).

^[56] Nor Ain Mohamed Radhi. (2025, June 24). Online Safety Act Gazetted, Enforcement Pending Completion of Regulations. New Straits Times. Retrieved from <https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2025/06/1235412/online-safety-act-gazetted-enforcement-pending-completion-regulations >. Site accessed on 11 December 2025.

^[57] Skrine. (2024, Dec 17). Online Safety Bill 2024 Passed by Malaysian Parliament. Retrieved from <https://www.skrine.com/insights/alerts/december-2024/online-safety-bill-2024-passed-by-malaysian-parlia >. Site accessed on 11 December 2025.

^[58] Online Safety Act 2025 (Act 866) (Malaysia) s 18.

^[59] Skrine. (2024, Dec 17). Online Safety Bill 2024 Passed by Malaysian Parliament. Retrieved from <https://www.skrine.com/insights/alerts/december-2024/online-safety-bill-2024-passed-by-malaysian-parlia >. Site accessed on 11 December 2025.

^[60] Mohamad Al As, Nor Ain Mohamad Radhi. (2025, Nov 3). MCMC drafting 10 subsidiary laws under Online Safety Act – Fahmi. New Straits Times: Malaysia. Retrieved from <https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2025/11/1307634/mcmc-drafting-10-subsidiary-laws-under-online-safety-act-fahmi >. Site accessed on 12 December 2025.

^[61] Anti-Bullying Bill 2025, Bill No D.R. 41/2025, passed by the Dewan Rakyat on 3 December 2025.

^[62] Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab. (2025, Dec 5). Press Release | Malaysian Bar Welcomes the Passing of the Anti-Bully Bill 2025: A Major Step in Protecting Children and Strengthening Justice. Malaysian Bar. Retrieved from <https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/press-statements/press-statements/press-release-malaysian-bar-welcomes-the-passing-of-the-anti-bully-bill-2025-a-major-step-in-protecting-children-and-strengthening-justice >. Site accessed on 13 December 2025.

^[63] Qistina Sallehuddin. (2025, Dec 3). Anti-Bullying Bill 2025 Passed, Review for Students Over 18 in 2026. New Straits Time. Retrieved from <https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2025/12/1329259/anti-bullying-bill-2025-passed-review-students-over-18-2026 >. Site accessed on 13 December 2025.

^[64] Malay Mail. (2025, Dec 3). Malaysia Passes Historic Anti-Bullying Bill 2025 to Protect Children, Set Up Tribunal. Retrieved from<https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/12/03/malaysia-passes-historic-anti-bullying-bill-2025-to-protect-children-set-up-tribunal/200638>. Site accessed on 12 December 2025.

^[65] Malay Mail. (2025, Dec 3). Malaysia Passes Historic Anti-Bullying Bill 2025 to Protect Children, Set Up Tribunal. Retrieved from<https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/12/03/malaysia-passes-historic-anti-bullying-bill-2025-to-protect-children-set-up-tribunal/200638>. Site accessed on 12 December 2025.

^[66] Ragananthini Vethasalam, Khoo Gek San. (2025, Dec 3). Anti-Bully Bill 2025 passed, scope of law to include adults in future. The Star. Retrieved from <https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/12/03/dewan-rakyat-passes-anti-bully-bill-2025 >. Site accessed on 13 December 2025.