Heidy Quah Gaik Li v Kerajaan Malaysia PIHAK TERKILAN Clooney Foundation For Justice

b-01a-514-10-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 18 August 2025 • B-01(A)-514-10/2023 • 70 min read
32 cases cited (0 SG, 32 foreign)

Catchwords

Fundamental liberties – Freedom of speech and expression – Section 233 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) – Impugned words “offensive” and “annoy” (“Impugned Words”) - Whether restriction pursues a legitimate aim under Art. 10(2)(a) Federal Constitution (“FC”) read with Art. 8 Federal Constitution. Whether Impugned Words constitute permissible restriction under Art. 10(2)(a) FC on grounds of public order - Whether restriction created by impugned words proportionate to a legitimate aim – Application of proportionality doctrine – Arts. 10(2)(a) and 8 FC -Whether criminalisation of offensive communications with intent to annoy amounts to a prohibition rather than a restriction. Whether criminalisation of “offensive” communications with intent to “annoy” consistent with Art. 10(1)(a) FC – Whether restriction valid under Art. 10(2)(a) FC – Whether disproportionate to any legitimate aim – Application of proportionality test – Distinction between “law and order” and “public order” – Articles 8 & 10 FC Communications made via social media – Facebook post regarding Covid-19 conditions in detention centre – Whether offence under s. 233(1) CMA – Whether truth of statement is a defence – Absence of statutory defence for “offensive” and “annoying” speech – Whether provision amounts to prohibition of free speech – DNAA and locus standi to challenge law - Whether courts empowered to strike down unconstitutional legislation – Doctrine of proportionality - Whether restriction under s. 233(1) CMA amounted to arbitrary and excessive exercise of legislative power. Whether the Impugned Words in s.233 CMA are consistent with Malaysia’s obligations under International Law.

Practice Areas

Fundamental liberties Whether Impugned Words constitute permissible restriction under Art. 10(2)(a) FC on grounds of public order Whether criminalisation of “offensive” communications with intent to “annoy” consistent with Art. 10(1)(a) FC Communications made via social media Whether the Impugned Words in s.233 CMA are consistent with Malaysia’s obligations under International Law.

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Hashim bin Hamzah Coram Lee Swee Seng Delivered

Parties (3)

Clooney Foundation For Justice Aggrieved Party Kerajaan Malaysia Respondent Heidy Quah Gaik Li Appellant

Case Significance

Heidy Quah Gaik Li v Kerajaan Malaysia PIHAK TERKILAN Clooney Foundation For ... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated August 18, 2025 (citation: b-01a-514-10-2023). <p>Heidy Quah challenged the constitutionality of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, after being charged for a Facebook post about Covid-19 conditions in an immigration detention centre. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, holding that section 233(1)(a) CMA, insofar as it criminalises 'offensive' communications with intent to 'annoy', is unconstitutional as a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expres The panel comprised Azman bin Abdullah, Hashim bin Hamzah and Lee Swee Seng, with Lee Swee Seng delivering the judgment.

Key issues: Whether the Impugned Words in s.233 CMA are consistent with Malaysia’s obligations under International Law..

Summary

Heidy Quah challenged the constitutionality of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, after being charged for a Facebook post about Covid-19 conditions in an immigration detention centre. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, holding that section 233(1)(a) CMA, insofar as it criminalises 'offensive' communications with intent to 'annoy', is unconstitutional as a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. The Court applied the proportionality doctrine and found the impugned words amounted to a prohibition rather than a constitutionally permissible restriction.

What was the outcome of Heidy Quah Gaik Li v Kerajaan Malaysia PIHAK TERKILAN Clooney Foundation For ...?

<p>Heidy Quah challenged the constitutionality of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, afte...

Statutes Cited

British Telecommunications Act 1981
s 49(1)(a)
Communications Act 2003
s 127
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
s 233(1)(a)
Federal Constitution
Art 10
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999
s 4(1)
Indian Information Technology Act 2000
s 66A
Minor Offences Act 1955
s 14
Peaceful Assembly Act 2012
s 9(5)
Penal Code
s 504
Penal Code (Cap 574)
Post Office Act 1947
s 28
Post Office Act 1969
s 78
Postal Services Act 1991 (Cap 465)
Telecommunications Act 1984
s 43(1)(a)
UK Communications Act 2003
s 127
UK Post Office Act 1953
s 66

Cases Cited (32)

UK (4)
[1939] AC 160 [1998] UKPC 30 [1999] 1 AC 69 [2001] UKHL 26
MY (25)
[1976] 2 MLJ 116 [1976] 2 MLJ 83 [2009] 5 CLJ 631 [2010] 2 MLJ 333 [2010] 3 MLJ 307 [2011] 6 MLJ 507 [2011] MLJU 2245 [2014] 2 MLJ 145 [2014] 4 MLJ 157 [2015] 3 MLJ 162 [2015] 6 MLJ 751 [2018] MLJU 1128 [2019] 4 MLJ 1 [2019] 5 CLJ 780 [2021] 2 MLJ 181 [2021] 3 CLJ 465 [2021] 5 MLJ 612 [2021] 6 CLJ 471 [2021] MLJU 1724 [2022] 1 CLJ 1 [2022] 3 CLJ 339 [2023] 7 MLJ 118 [2024] 1 CLJ 681 [2024] 2 CLJ 341 [2025] 4 MLJ 807
IN (3)
AIR 1966 SC 740 AIR 1970 SC 1228 AIR 2008 SC 2096