HEIDY QUAH GAIK LI v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LEE SWEE SENG FCJ
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
AZMAN ABDULLAH JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-01(A)-514-10-2023]
26 AUGUST 2025
[2025] CLJ JT (11)

Abstract – The criminalisation of speech that is 'offensive' and made with the 'intent to annoy' under s. 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 ('CMA') is an unconstitutional and disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression under art. 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. This restriction is not a permissible limitation under art. 10(2)(a) as: (i) the impugned words, 'offensive' and 'annoy', are too broad and vague to have a rational connection to a legitimate aim; (ii) the prohibition is disproportionate to the intended aim. Criminalising truthful statements just because they are offensive or annoying to some individuals goes against the principle of freedom of expression; (iii) the criminalisation of speech intended to annoy is not a legitimate restriction on the grounds of 'public order'. An act that affects 'law and order' by inconveniencing a single person is not sufficient to justify a restriction on free speech. Permissible restrictions on free speech are limited to matters that threaten or affect public order.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties – Freedom of speech and expression – Offensive speech in social media posting – Social media user charged with making and initiating transmission of offensive comments with intent to annoy others – Offence under s. 233(1)(a) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 – Whether impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' constitutional – Whether consistent with art. 10(1)(a) of Federal Constitution – Whether valid restriction under art. 10(2)(a) on ground of public order – Whether proportionate restriction – Whether there was rational nexus between restriction and legitimate aim – Whether words 'offensive' and 'annoy' vague and arbitrary

CYBER LAW: Improper use of network facilities – Social media posting – Offensive speech in social media posting – Social media user charged with making and initiating transmission of offensive comments with intent to annoy others – Offence under s. 233(1)(a) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 – Whether impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' constitutional – Whether consistent with art. 10(1)(a) of Federal Constitution

WORDS & PHRASES: 'offensive' and 'annoy' – Offensive comments – Social media user charged with making and initiating transmission of offensive comments with intent to annoy others – Offence under s. 233(1)(a) of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 – Whether impugned words constitutional – Whether vague and arbitrary