Latest news with #HeidyQuah
Malaysiakini
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
CMA provisions: Court's done its part, time for Parliament to act
COMMENT | The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) welcomes the Court of Appeal's landmark ruling in Heidy Quah v Government of Malaysia yesterday. The appellate court declared the use of Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) to criminalise online expression deemed 'offensive' or made with the 'intent to annoy' as unconstitutional. The court affirmed that such vague and subjective provisions are inconsistent with Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, read together with Article 8(1) on equality, respectively, serving as a precedent for all future judgments. It is critical to note that the court further extrapolated that
Malaysiakini
a day ago
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Court's grounds for striking down 'offensive', 'annoy' provisions
Two words have been declared unconstitutional by Malaysia's appellate court - 'offensive' and 'annoys' - effectively neutering key provisions of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The landmark ruling emerged from activist Heidy Quah's successful challenge to Section 233, which previously allowed prosecution for online content deemed offensive or annoying. A three-member judicial panel...
Malaysiakini
a day ago
- Politics
- Malaysiakini
Court's grounds for striking down 'offensive', 'annoy' provisions
Two words have been declared unconstitutional by Malaysia's appellate court - 'offensive' and 'annoys' - effectively neutering key provisions of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The landmark ruling emerged from activist Heidy Quah's successful challenge to Section 233, which previously allowed prosecution for online content deemed offensive or annoying. A three-member judicial panel...
Rakyat Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Rakyat Post
Court Of Appeal Strikes Words ‘'Annoy'' & 'Offensive'' From Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
Subscribe to our FREE In 2022, activist Heidy Quah was given a The charge was framed under Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which carries a maximum fine of RM50,000 or imprisonment for up to a year or both and a further fine of RM1,000 for each day the offence is continued after conviction. Quah was allowed bail of RM2,000 with one surety. The charges against her were dropped because Judge MM Edwin Paramjothy ruled that the charges were defective and did not comply with the requirements of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 and Sections 152 to 154 of the Criminal Procedures Code (CPC). She has since filed a civil suit to challenge the validity of the terms ''offensive'' and ''annoy'' in Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act. Today, the Court of Appeal struck out both words from the Act, ruling them unconstitutional since they go In light of the good news, Quah said she's grateful for the court because Malaysians can exercise their democratic rights. Quah believes Malaysians have the right to champion causes that are important to them without fearing being ''labelled'' as causing offense or annoyance. She explained that removing both terms from the charge protects the freedom of speech afforded to all. In Malaysia, we want to uphold the truth and sometimes there needs to be difficult conversations to be held. Activist Heidy Quah tells BFM She explained that removing both terms from the Act allows offenders to be charged for actual crimes instead of using vague and subjective reasons. This helps promote transparency and accountability. Did you know that more than 2,800 cases have been investigated under this now deemed unconstitutional law? And up to March 2023, fines amounting to RM138,250 were imposed on those found to be guilty of breaking it. Source: Communications and Digital Ministry via Dewan Rakyat — Aidila Razak (@aidilarazak) Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Malaysia still criminalises ‘grossly offensive' online remarks, but here's why today's ruling on ‘offensive' speech was lauded
The Court of Appeal's decision today only makes it no longer a crime in Malaysia to make 'offensive' online remarks, but it does not affect a newer version of the law, which was updated this year to criminalise 'grossly offensive' online remarks. But the Court of Appeal's decision today was still seen as 'progressive' as it that criminalising 'offensive' online remarks goes against the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Instead of trying to 'shoot the messenger', the Court of Appeal said the authorities should have investigated activist Heidy Quah's allegations in a Facebook post to see whether they were true or not. PUTRAJAYA, Aug 19 — The Court of Appeal's decision today which ruled that offensive online remarks made with intention to annoy another person is no longer a crime in Malaysia has been praised for being progressive and good for democracy. After activist Heidy Quah won her constitutional challenge against the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the Communications and Multimedia Act's Section 233, her lawyer New Sin Yew said the decision vindicates his client and civil society who argued that both words are problematic and inconsistent with the right to freedom of speech. 'So it's a good decision and I think it's an early Merdeka celebration for many of us,' he told reporters, also saying it was a 'progressive' decision. Noting that the Malaysian government had recently amended Section 233 to replace the word 'offensive' with the word 'grossly offensive', New said this means the government also recognises the problems with the word 'offensive'. ''Offensive' is a much lower standard compared to 'grossly offensive', but that's not to say that 'grossly offensive' is not in itself problematic, it still is,' he said. New said the older version of Section 233 — which criminalises 'offensive' online remarks —- had been abused and was used against political dissidents, activists, civil society and human rights defenders, and that today's court decision only affects this older version. As for the new version of Section 233 — which criminalises 'grossly offensive' online remarks, New said civil society is expected to closely watch and observe how the government uses it. The Malaysian government had in December 2024 started the process in Parliament to amend Section 233, and this new version became law and took effect on February 11, 2025. The new version of Section 233 replaced the word 'offensive' with 'grossly offensive', but did not modify the word 'annoy'. Section 233 now also has higher penalties for making such online remarks, including increasing the original penalty (maximum RM50,000 fine or maximum one-year jail term or both) to a heavier punishment (maximum RM500,000 fine or maximum two-year jail term or both). Commenting on today's decision, Quah told reporters that the decision would mean a lot for democracy in Malaysia. 'For the longest time, we realise that the civil society space has been working in a place of fear, where they may get arrested or charged for speaking truth to power,' she said. 'I think it's really important that Malaysians are given the place to speak out against injustice, because as what the court has said, when we raise a concern — for example about issues of conditions of detention centres — you know it's really important then that we investigate the allegation and not the whistleblower,' she said, stressing the importance of freedom of speech for Malaysia to progress. Quah was previously charged in July 2021 under Section 233 for making a Facebook post that was alleged to be offensive with the intent to annoy, with her remarks in June 2020 revolving around matters such as alleged conditions in immigration detention centres amid the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2022, Quah was given a 'discharge not amounting to acquittal' (DNAA), which meant she was released from the charge but could be charged under the same law again. Today, the Court of Appeal noted that Quah's Facebook post should have prompted an investigation into her allegation, instead of being turned into a 'shoot the messenger' situation. 'The message communicated by the appellant would ordinarily sound the alarm for a full and thorough investigation into what is alleged, rather than an attempt to 'shoot the messenger',' judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng said when reading out the broad grounds of the court's unanimous ruling. The judge said a message cannot be offensive with intent to annoy if it was found to be true, and that there are already other existing laws to charge Quah if her message was found to be false. The judge later said treating the truth as offensive and annoying would risk 'rewarding opacity and cover-up rather than promoting transparency and accountability'. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal's decision to invalidate the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 is based on these four main legal reasons:
