Malaysia: Malaysian Federal Court held online platform provider liable for third party content

Freedom of expression in Malaysia to be exercised within the bounds permissible by law

In brief

On 19 February 2021, the majority of the Malaysian Federal Court ("Federal Court") delivered its much-anticipated judgment in Peguam Negara Malaysia v Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd and Another [2020] 4 MLJ 791 in respect of the allegation of contempt of court by way of comments posted by subscribers and readers on the Malaysiakini news portal on 9 June 2020.

The Federal Court in its majority decision held that Malaysiakini, an online platform provider, is liable  for third party comments which are offensive and inappropriate even though they had no knowledge of the same until notified and where the impugned comments were then promptly removed. Further, compliance with the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code ("Content Code") did not shield Malaysiakini from liability. 

While the matter related to an offence of criminal contempt, the Federal Court's decision is likely to impact and change the landscape of liability for online platform providers in Malaysia with regard to third party content. 


Key takeaways

Online platform providers, news portals, website owners, social media platforms, providers of online chats and other online content providers may no longer exonerate itself from liability arising from the publication of third party content even though they have no control over and/or knowledge of the same.  Reliance on a quick 'takedown procedure' and compliance with the Content Code does not provide any shield of defence.

In depth


In June 2020, the Attorney General of Malaysia commenced committal proceedings against an online news portal, Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd ("Malaysiakini") and its Editor-in-Chief, Gan Diong Keng pertaining to the comments posted by its online subscribers and readers on 9 June 2020. The alleged comments were posted on the Malaysiakini website in response to a Press Release by the Chief Justice, which was republished on the website. The application for contempt of court was made on the ground that the comments posted had scandalised the Malaysian judiciary, in general, and the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia, in particular.

Overview of the judgment

The Federal Court decided as follows:

Liability of news portal

An online news portal can be presumed under the law as the publisher of any comments posted by its third party online subscribers or readers, by virtue of Section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950. This legal presumption is however a rebuttable one.  

An online news portal is the owner of its website, which publishes articles of public importance and allows subscribers to post comments to generate discussions. It has the ultimate power to design and control its online platform in any way it chooses. In doing so, it must carry with it the risks that follow from allowing the way its platform operates.

The safeguards adopted by Malaysiakini including its filter software which filters foul language failed to efficiently control or prevent offensive comments from being published. The Federal Court held that Malaysikini failed to rebut the presumption of publication because, inter alia:

  • Malaysiakini is responsible for facilitating publication;
  • Malaysiakini has in place an editorial policy which allows editing, removing and modifying comments;
  • The editors of the news portal, including the Editor-in-Chief, review postings on a daily basis; and
  • The impugned comments were only removed by Malaysiakini upon being notified.

The Federal Court therefore found that the charge for facilitating the publication of the impugned comments proved and Malaysiakini was therefore guilty of contempt of Court.

In her dissenting judgment, YA Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan held that an online content service provider such as Malaysiakini is a 'publisher' only if it does have knowledge of the existence and content of the comments posted by third parties.  If it does not, then it cannot be said to have published those comments because knowledge is a necessary element of publication. 

To decide otherwise would mean that an online content provider is affixed with liability as soon as the third party impugned content appears on the portal and it will be unable to avoid liability even if it removes the impugned content upon notification.  Such a consequence would not be in accord with the objective of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 ("CMA") where it is stated that nothing in the Act should be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.  This is further fortified by the Content Code which permits a 'take down procedure'.   Her Ladyship recognized that Section 98(2) of the CMA provides that compliance with the Content Code is a defence against prosecution or otherwise regarding a matter dealt with in the code and that Malaysiakini acted in compliance with the Content Code.

* * * * *

LOGO Malaysia_Wong & Partners_KualaLumpur

This client alert was issued by Wong & Partners, a member firm of Baker McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "partner" means a person who is a partner or equivalent in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 

Copyright © 2023 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.