Defamation Act 1957

Defamation Act 1957 · Act 286
Akta Fitnah 1957
Applies to: Federal (whole of Malaysia) · Official text ↗

Key points

Defamation (fitnah) is publishing a statement to someone else that lowers a person's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people. Most of the law is common law; the Defamation Act 1957 adjusts parts of it.
Libel is defamation in permanent form (writing, pictures, posts, broadcasts). Slander is spoken or temporary. Libel is actionable without proof of financial loss; slander usually needs proof of loss, with some exceptions (ss 4, 5).
Main defences: truth (justification), fair comment on a matter of public interest, absolute privilege, qualified privilege, and an offer of amends for innocent defamation (ss 7 to 12).
Online, s 114A of the Evidence Act 1950 presumes that the account owner, administrator or subscriber published a post unless they prove otherwise.
Remedies include damages, an injunction to stop or remove the statement, and an apology. Sharing or reposting can also make you liable.
Defamation can also be a crime: Penal Code s 499 defines it and s 500 punishes it with up to 2 years' jail, a fine, or both.

What defamation is

To succeed in a civil claim, the person suing (the plaintiff) generally has to show three things:

the words were defamatory: they tend to lower the plaintiff's reputation, or cause people to shun or avoid them, or expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule;
the words referred to the plaintiff, by name or in a way people would identify them;
the words were published, meaning communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.

'Words' includes pictures, visual images, gestures and other ways of conveying meaning (s 2), so memes, edited photos and videos can be defamatory. Meaning includes any innuendo: what ordinary readers would understand between the lines.

Libel (libel) is defamation in permanent form, such as print, online posts and broadcasts (broadcasting is treated as permanent form under s 3). Slander (fitnah lisan) is spoken. Libel is actionable without proving financial loss. Slander normally requires proof of actual loss ('special damage'), except where the words:

impute unchastity or adultery to a woman or girl (s 4);
are calculated to disparage a person in their office, profession, trade or business (s 5);

Defences

Justification (truth). If what you said is substantially true, it is a complete defence. You do not have to prove every charge true if the unproven ones do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation given the ones proved (s 8).
Fair comment. An honest opinion on a matter of public interest, based on true facts. It need not prove every fact true, provided the opinion is fair given the facts that are proved (s 9). Malice defeats the defence.
Absolute privilege. Statements in Parliament and in court proceedings, and fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports of public court proceedings (s 11), cannot found a defamation claim.
Qualified privilege. Protects statements made in good faith by someone with a legal, social or moral duty or interest to someone with a corresponding interest, for example a reference from a former employer or a complaint to the police or a regulator. Certain newspaper and broadcast reports listed in the Schedule are also privileged (ss 12, 13). It is defeated by malice. Statements by election candidates are not privileged just because they relate to an election (s 14).
Offer of amends (s 7). If you published words innocently (you did not intend to refer to the plaintiff, or did not know the words could be defamatory, and took reasonable care), you can offer to publish a correction and apology. If it is accepted, the claim ends; if refused, it can be a defence.
Apology. An early apology does not by itself defeat the claim but can reduce damages (s 10).

Every repetition is a new publication. Sharing, retweeting, forwarding in a WhatsApp group or quoting a defamatory post can make you liable, even if you did not write it.
Presumption of publication (Evidence Act 1950 s 114A, added 2012). A person is presumed to have published a statement if their name, photo or pseudonym appears on it as owner, host, administrator or editor; if they are the registered subscriber of the internet service it came from; or if it originated from a computer in their custody or control. The presumption can be rebutted, for example by showing an account was hacked, but the burden is on that person.
Group admins and page owners should remove defamatory content promptly once aware of it.
Online posts can also be offences under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (s 233), which is a separate matter from civil defamation.

Remedies and procedure

Letter of demand. Most cases start with a lawyer's letter demanding withdrawal, an apology and compensation.
Damages. General damages for harm to reputation and feelings; aggravated damages where conduct made things worse; sometimes exemplary damages.
Injunction. A court order to take down a post or stop repeating a statement.
Apology and retraction, often as part of a settlement.
Court. Claims are filed in the Sessions Court or High Court depending on the amount claimed. See How a civil case works.
Time limit. Defamation is a tort, so the general six-year limit for tort claims applies (Limitation Act 1953, s 6). Act quickly: evidence online disappears.

Keep screenshots showing the date, time, URL and account name, and note who saw the post.

Before you post: a practical checklist

Can I prove it? If you state something as fact, assume you may have to prove it in court with documents or witnesses (s 8).
Is it clearly my opinion? Say what the facts are, then give your view. Fair comment protects honest opinion based on true facts (s 9), not invented facts dressed up as opinion.
Am I naming or identifying someone? A person can be identified by a photo, nickname, workplace or description even if not named.
Is this the right channel? Suspected crimes go to the police; complaints about professionals go to their regulator; consumer complaints can go to the Tribunal for Consumer Claims. A complaint made in good faith to the proper body is far safer than a public post.
Am I just sharing? Forwarding is publishing. If you would not write it yourself, do not share it.
Made a mistake? Take it down, correct it publicly and apologise quickly (s 10).

Criminal defamation

Defamation is also a crime under the Penal Code. Section 499 defines it as making or publishing an imputation about a person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe it will harm, that person's reputation. It has its own list of exceptions, which differ from the civil defences, so get advice if you are investigated. Section 500 punishes it with imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.

Criminal defamation starts with a police report and is prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor. The civil and criminal routes are separate; a person can face both.

Laws cited on this page

Act 56	Evidence Act 1950 · Akta Keterangan 1950	Official text
Act 254	Limitation Act 1953 · Akta Had Masa 1953	Official text
Act 286	Defamation Act 1957 · Akta Fitnah 1957	Official text
Act 574	Penal Code · Kanun Keseksaan	Official text
Act 588	Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 · Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998	Official text

Listed automatically from the federal Acts named on this page. All laws of Malaysia →

Key sections

Provision	What it says, in plain words
s 2	'Words' includes pictures, visual images, gestures and other methods of signifying meaning.
s 3	Broadcast statements are treated as publication in permanent form (libel).
s 4	Slander imputing unchastity or adultery to a woman or girl is actionable without proof of loss.
s 5	Slander disparaging a person in their office, profession, trade or business is actionable without proof of loss.
s 7	Unintentional defamation: offer of amends (correction and apology) with affidavit.
s 8	Justification does not fail just because not every charge is proved true.
s 9	Fair comment does not fail just because not every fact is proved, if the opinion is fair on the facts proved.
s 10	Apology may be given in evidence to reduce damages.
s 11	Fair, accurate, contemporaneous reports of public court proceedings are absolutely privileged.
s 12	Qualified privilege for listed newspaper reports, unless malice is proved.
s 14	Election statements are not privileged merely because they relate to the election.
Evidence Act s 114A	Presumption that the named owner/admin, the subscriber, or the computer's custodian published online content.
Penal Code ss 499, 500	Criminal defamation; punishable with up to 2 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Worked examples

Example 1: Angry customer review

Facts. After a bad meal, Ravi posts on Google Reviews: 'The food was cold and overpriced, and the service was slow.'

The law. This is an honest opinion based on true facts about a matter of public interest (a business open to the public), so fair comment would likely apply (s 9). If true, justification also applies (s 8).

Outcome. The restaurant is unlikely to succeed. Keep reviews factual and avoid inventing facts or alleging crimes.

Example 2: False accusation of theft in a WhatsApp group

Facts. Siti tells her 200-member residents' WhatsApp group that her neighbour Mr Tan 'stole a parcel from my doorstep', without evidence. Others forward the message.

The law. Accusing someone of a crime is defamatory. Under Evidence Act s 114A, Siti as the sender is presumed to have published the message. Each person who forwarded it also published it. Justification fails unless she can prove the theft.

Outcome. Mr Tan can send a letter of demand and sue Siti (and possibly those who forwarded it) for damages and an apology. He could also lodge a police report for criminal defamation (Penal Code s 500). Siti should apologise and retract quickly; an early apology can reduce damages (s 10). If she suspected theft, the right step was a police report, which is protected by qualified privilege if made in good faith.

Example 3: Wrong person tagged

Facts. A news site publishes a story about a fraudster named 'Ahmad Faiz' and uses a photo of a different, innocent Ahmad Faiz from social media.

The law. The words refer to the innocent man through the photo. If the site did not intend to refer to him and took reasonable care, it may make an offer of amends under s 7: a suitable correction and apology. The site must still prove it exercised all reasonable care.

Outcome. The innocent Ahmad Faiz should demand removal and an apology. The site should correct immediately; otherwise it faces a damages claim.

Example 4: Reference from a former employer

Facts. Ms Wong writes a reference saying her former employee was dismissed for repeated late attendance, which is accurate.

The law. A reference given in good faith to a prospective employer who has an interest in receiving it is protected by qualified privilege, and true statements are justified (s 8).

Outcome. No liability unless the employee proves malice, for example that Ms Wong knew it was false or wrote it out of spite.

Examples are simplified illustrations with invented names; real cases turn on their own facts.

Questions & answers

What is the difference between libel and slander?

Libel is in permanent form: writing, print, pictures, online posts and broadcasts (s 3). Slander is spoken or otherwise temporary. Libel is actionable without proof of financial loss. Slander usually requires proof of loss, except in cases such as imputing unchastity to a woman (s 4) or disparaging someone in their profession or business (s 5).

Can I be sued for sharing someone else's post?

Yes. Each republication, including sharing, retweeting or forwarding, is a fresh publication. Under Evidence Act s 114A you may also be presumed to have published content on an account or device you control.

Is it defamation if what I said is true?

Truth (justification) is a complete defence to a civil claim (s 8), but you must be able to prove it. Criminal defamation under the Penal Code has its own, narrower exceptions, so truth alone may not be enough there.

Can I criticise a politician or public figure?

Yes, opinions on matters of public interest are protected by fair comment if they are honestly held and based on facts that are true (s 9). False statements of fact are not protected just because the target is a public figure.

How long do I have to sue?

Defamation is a tort, so the general six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1953 s 6 applies, running from publication. Do not wait: online evidence can disappear and delay may weaken a claim for an injunction.

Can defamation lead to jail?

Yes. Under Penal Code s 500, criminal defamation is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. Prosecutions follow a police report and are decided by the Public Prosecutor.

Someone defamed me online. What should I do first?

Take dated screenshots with the URL and account name, note who saw it, and avoid replying in anger. Then consider a lawyer's letter of demand asking for removal, an apology and compensation, a police report if it is also a crime, and a report to the platform.

All questions & answers → · Ask your own →

This page explains the general position in Malaysia (last reviewed October 2026). It is not legal advice — check the current law and get advice on your own facts.

Sources

Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Evidence Act 1950 Penal Code How a civil case runs Limitation Act 1953 Personal Data Protection Act 2010