18 June 2025 marks the 4th anniversary of the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, which the UN General Assembly proclaimed through its resolution on ‘promoting inter-religious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance in countering hate speech’ adopted in July 2021. On this day, ARTICLE 19 reiterates that ‘hate speech’, as a form of discriminatory expression, is a severe human rights concern, often used to silence and intimidate minorities and scapegoat whole groups in society while stifling dissent. Any form of discrimination and hate must be ended immediately with more progressive policies and initiatives from multi-stakeholders in society.
The 2021 resolution recognises the need to counter discrimination, xenophobia and hate speech and calls on all relevant actors, including states, to increase their efforts to address this phenomenon, in line with international human rights law.
‘Hate speech’ under international human rights standards
There is no uniform definition of ‘hate speech’ under international human rights law. The term is often used to describe language that, while offensive or inflammatory, is protected by international standards relating to freedom of expression. For this reason, the incorporation of ‘hate speech’ provisions into criminal law frameworks is highly likely to result in the restriction of speech to a degree not permitted by international human rights law.
Under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are permitted only if they are: (a) provided by law, (b) in pursuit of a legitimate aim, including protecting the rights of others, and (c) necessary and proportionate to that aim. Additionally, ICCPR Article 20(2) requires that governments restrict speech that incites discrimination, hostility, violence or international crimes. These standards establish a high threshold for determining when speech constitutes a threat and imply the need to criminalise speech only when less extreme measures are insufficient.
Promote equality and say no to hate speech
Despite legislative protections in Malaysia, namely Article 8(2) of the Malaysian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender, systemic discrimination against minorities persists. Over the years, these groups, including refugees, migrants, and religious minorities, have faced hateful and discriminatory language and actions fomented by Malaysian leaders. In June during the Pride month the attacks against LGBTQI+ communities are no exception.
We have observed how those in power have consistently contributed to the hatred against minorities in Malaysia. The recent incidents targeting the LGBTQI+ community are very concerning. In May, the Terengganu state government, through the Kuala Terengganu City Council, erected an anti-LGBTQI+ signboard aimed at inciting hatred and fear towards LGBTQI+ individuals. What is particularly alarming is that a member of the Terengganu State Executive Council for Local Government, Housing, and Health defended this action. He was quoted in the media stating, ‘We really want the people to hate this homosexual act. We want them to think it is dirty, wrong, and should be avoided.’ Statements and actions like these endanger LGBTQI+ individuals and foster an environment of hostility among communities.
There is also an ongoing systematic attempt to ban any publications that have LGBTQI+ content. On 27 May, the Ministry of Home Affairs of Malaysia confirmed it had banned seven books under Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) for allegedly being a threat to morality and public order. The ban is the latest example of the PPPA’s violation of international human rights law and of Malaysian officials using the act to censor material that the public should be able to freely access. Censorship based on public morality has raised significant concerns and sparked ongoing debates. These actions have intensified the hostility and discrimination faced by LGBTQI+ individuals, many of whom already feel unsafe and at risk of retaliation for expressing their identities.
On 4 June, police called two members of the youth wing of the Malaysian Socialist Party Pemuda Sosialis in for questioning in relation to the ‘PRIDECARE: Queer Stories and Sexual Health Awareness’ workshop to be organised in conjunction with Pride in June. The Bukit Aman Classified Crimes Investigation Unit conducted the investigation under Section 298A of the Penal Code for alleged blasphemy, Section 505(c) of the Penal Code for allegedly inciting a crime, and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), which criminalises the improper use of network facilities. The police also confiscated the mobile phone of one of the activists after taking their statement. Organisers have since postponed the workshop, after a rise in hateful comments and death threats being posted on the organisers’ social media pages, and following public condemnations from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Religious Affairs), Na’im Mokhtar, on 29 May 2025.
The perpetuation of malicious narratives against LGBTQI+ individuals raises urgent concerns about the government’s commitment to protecting human rights, including the rights to equality and non-discrimination especially when the ‘hate speech’ is being perpetuated by the state and politicians, who have a substantial influence on people, and any missteps from them can lead to violence and hate crimes. This can undermine security and social cohesion.
Policy measures to address ‘hate speech’ and intolerance in Malaysia
Discussion on the protection of minorities from discrimination and how to address ‘hate speech’ in Malaysian society has never been timelier. At the same time, solutions to these problems should not rest on censorship. Too often, censorship of contentious issues or viewpoints fails to address the underlying social roots of the kind of prejudice that undermines the right to equality. Restricting freedom of expression is ineffective in combating religious and racial hatred, and adequate protection and social inclusion of groups at risk of discrimination and violence requires broader and positive policy measures.
Malaysia relies on its antiquated 1948 Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) to impose limits on free speech and the protection of people against ‘hate speech’. In practice, these laws priorities the safety of social institutions, namely the monarchy, religion and government institutions. The government has declared that any speech that comprises the 3Rs (race, religion and royalty) will not be tolerated. Through its regulatory body, Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), the government has taken steps to censor and criminalise alleged online ‘hate speech’ online with selective prosecution under repressive laws like the CMA (which was amended last year with even more restrictions) the Sedition Act and the Penal Code. Most of the time, problematic laws such as the Sedition Act, the CMA, and the Penal Code are used to restrict legitimate speech that should be protected. These laws do not comply with the standards governing restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.
Creating an enabling environment for the right to freedom of expression and equality is not only an obligation of States under international human rights law. It is essential for ensuring that opportunities to expose and counter ‘hate speech’ are maximised. The Malaysian government must take steps to achieve this, including by passing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in line with international human rights standards, so that Malaysians are able freely express themselves, exchange ideas and engage in healthy debates, which leads to better policies and more stable societies.
International initiatives have provided a growing body of standards and recommendations to guide government efforts to combat intolerance and ‘hate speech’. In particular, Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 sets out a universally agreed action plan by states for addressing prejudice based on religion or belief. The Rabat Plan of Action provides practical legal and policy guidance to states on implementing Article 20(2) of the ICCPR. These documents propose a whole society approach and a range of positive policy measures to combat ‘hate speech’ that do not rely on criminal penalties: including facilitating interfaith dialogue, training government officials, promoting media pluralism, and creating ‘equality bodies’ to address conflict and intolerance.
Importantly, state officials and political figures should lead by example. They have a vital role to play in identifying and promptly speaking out against intolerance and discrimination, including instances of ‘hate speech’. They must not engage in it themselves.
ARTICLE 19 urges the Malaysian government to focus its legislative efforts on ensuring compliance with the standards outlined in Articles 19(3) and 20(2) of the ICCPR, as well as on amending or repealing laws that are inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression. The Malaysian government should also revive efforts to pass comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in line with international human rights standards. Any form of national unity must respect the rights of minorities, ensuring more inclusive and non-discriminatory policies that not only protect those who are affected the most but help promote the well-being of all Malaysians.