THE GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA v. HEIDY QUAH GAIK LI
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
WAN AHMAD FARID SALLEH CJ 
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ 
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI FCJ 
NAZLAN MOHD GHAZALI FCJ 
COLLIN LAWRENCE SEQUERAH FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 01(f)-44-11-2025(B)]
6 FEBRUARY 2026
[2026] CLJ JT (2)

Abstract – (i) Article 4(2) of the Federal Constitution ('FC') does not derogate from art. 4(1) of the FC in establishing the FC as the supreme law of the Federation. As such, constitutional supremacy remains the cornerstone of the FC. What art. 4(2) of the FC does, however, is to limit the ability of the courts to question or challenge Parliament's intention or judgment that any restriction imposed on the right to freedom of speech and expression under art. 10(1)(a) of the FC was 'necessary or expedient' for the specified grounds set out in art. 10(2)(a) of the FC. This means that it is open to a court to still judicially review the impugned legislation to ascertain whether it falls within those specified grounds set out in art. 10(2)(a) of the FC and referenced in art. 4(2) of the FC; (ii) The words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in s. 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 are not unconstitutional, in that, the impugned words (a) do not contravene art. 10(1)(a) of the FC; and (b) fall within the purview of a permitted restriction under art. 10(2)(a) of the FC.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties – Freedom of speech and expression – 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 ('CMA') – Challenge to constitutionality of s. 233(1)(a) of CMA – Interpretation of art. 4(1) read together with art. 4(2) of Federal Constitution ('FC') – Whether words 'offensive' and 'annoy' inconsistent with arts. 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of FC – Whether words fell within permitted restrictions

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties – Freedom of speech and expression – Restriction – 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 ('CMA') – Challenge to constitutionality of s. 233(1)(a) of CMA – Scope of art. 10(1)(a) of Federal Constitution – Whether statements of fact and opinions on public health conditions protected speech

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

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes – Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, s. 233(1)(a) – Interpretation of 'offensive' and 'annoy' – Application of 'core-penumbra' narrowing construction – Whether focus should be on mens rea rather than actus reus – Whether provision criminalises situational intent rather than content

WORDS & PHRASES: 'offensive' and 'annoy' – Meaning of – 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