Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) makes it an offence to transmit, by network facilities or services, communications that are “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character” with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. The penalty: fine up to RM50,000, imprisonment up to one year, plus RM1,000 daily for continuing offences. In 2025, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has continued aggressive enforcement of section 233, particularly for content concerning state institutions, public figures, and racial or religious topics.

The pattern of 2025 enforcement

One representative example: on 21 July 2025, MCMC initiated an investigation into an individual who posted offensive remarks on Facebook concerning the royal institution and the appointment of the Chief Justice. The individual\’s statement was recorded under caution; a mobile phone and SIM card were seized. The investigation was under section 233 of the CMA.

Similar enforcement actions have been reported throughout 2025 covering: comments about the Sultan or other royal figures; comments about religious figures or institutions; comments about specific ethnic or political groups; coordinated online harassment campaigns. The pattern: MCMC monitoring and identification, cautioned interview, seizure of device and SIM, charge.

The criminal-versus-civil overlap

Section 233 and civil defamation can apply to the same conduct. A defamatory Facebook post can give rise to: (a) a civil suit by the target seeking damages, injunction and apology; (b) an MCMC investigation and criminal prosecution under section 233. The two tracks proceed independently. A criminal conviction can later be used as evidence in the civil suit (Evidence Act 1950 section 43). See our detailed comparison: Civil vs Criminal Defamation in Malaysia.

The elements of section 233

• Use of network facilities or services — any internet platform, mobile network, telecommunications service
• Transmission of communication — posts, messages, comments, broadcasts
• Content character — obscene, indecent, false, menacing, or offensive
• Intent — to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person

The intent element is critical and often contested. Mere offensiveness without intent to harass a specific person should not engage section 233 — but in practice, prosecutors and the MCMC have applied the section broadly. Constitutional challenges on Article 10(1)(a) (freedom of speech) grounds have been raised but not successfully struck down the section.

Defence considerations

Identification and authorship

The prosecution must prove that the accused was the author of the offending content. Where accounts have been hacked, shared, or impersonated, identification arguments are available. Digital forensic evidence is critical on both sides.

Intent

The mens rea element requires intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass a specific person. Generalised criticism of institutions or public figures without targeted harassment of an individual is harder for the prosecution to prove. Robust cross-examination of the prosecution\’s witnesses on this element is essential.

Truth and fair comment

Unlike civil defamation, truth and fair comment are not formal defences to section 233. However, where the content is factually accurate or constitutes opinion on a matter of public interest, this affects the “offensive” character element and the assessment of intent.

Sentencing mitigation

For first-time offenders, takedown of the offending content, public apology, and remorse expressed in mitigation can result in a fine rather than imprisonment. Where the offender has no antecedents and the content is removed promptly, custodial sentences are typically avoided.

Practical takeaway

If you have received a notice from MCMC or have been informed you are being investigated for online speech: (a) do not delete the content (this can be a separate offence); (b) do not attend a cautioned interview without legal advice; (c) preserve all relevant communications and accounts; (d) consult counsel immediately. The penalty is significant and a criminal record from section 233 affects employment, travel and professional licensing.

See also: Section 233 vs Civil Defamation | 马来西亚的网络诽谤 | Criminal Defence Lawyer in Malaysia

About the author

Dr Chee Hui Bing is a Malaysian Advocate & Solicitor and former medical doctor. Principal of 克里斯和伙伴律师事务所, Batu Pahat, Johor. Read full profile.