STAY UP TO DATE: The Effects of the US Foreign Aid Freeze on Freedom House
Expanding Freedom and Democracy
Freedom on the Net 2025

Malaysia

Partly Free
60
100
A Obstacles to Access 19 25
B Limits on Content 21 35
C Violations of User Rights 20 40
Last Year's Score & Status
60 100 Partly Free
Scores are based on a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free). See the methodology and report acknowledgements.
Malaysia_hero_map

header1 Key Developments, June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025

Internet freedom conditions remained stable in Malaysia. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) continued to remove online content that was perceived to be critical of the government, and legislation that was adopted during the coverage period granted further censorship powers to the regulator.

  • In September 2024, the MCMC rolled back planned rules that would have required Malaysian service providers to reroute domain name system (DNS) traffic to domestic servers, a practice known as DNS hijacking, after civil society groups raised concerns about how the measure could facilitate censorship.1 The Sinar Project, a Malaysian civic technology organization, first reported evidence of DNS hijacking by two service providers in August 2024 (B1 and B3).2
  • Disclosures by the short-video platform TikTok indicated a high rate of requests to remove content under local law during the coverage period,3 and prominent activist Fahmi Reza’s account on the platform was banned in December 2024, while he was live-streaming a lecture about student activism (B2 and B8).4
  • Parliament passed two laws aimed at regulating online content in December 2024. The Communications and Multimedia (Amendment) Act 2024 afforded the MCMC new powers to censor content on social media platforms and criminalized “indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or grossly offensive” content, among other provisions. The second law, the Online Safety Act, established a duty for social media platforms to “mitigate the risk of users being exposed to harmful content,” and tasked the MCMC with enforcing the duty through content-removal and surveillance authorities. The first law took effect in February 2025, and the Online Safety Act received royal assent in May 2025 (B3, C2, and C6).5
  • Several people were arrested and charged for their online commentary about politics, including social media posts that were deemed insulting to Malaysia’s hereditary rulers.6 In October 2024, a Cambodian woman living in Malaysia was arrested and deported to Cambodia, reportedly because of her social media posts criticizing that country’s government (C3).7

header2 Political Overview

The Barisan Nasional (BN) political coalition ruled Malaysia from independence in 1957 until 2018, maintaining power by manipulating electoral districts, appealing to ethnic nationalism, and suppressing criticism through restrictive speech laws and politicized prosecutions of opposition leaders. The BN lost to an opposition alliance in the 2018 general elections, and political affairs have since been characterized by a more complex pattern of competition and cooperation among multiple coalitions, creating opportunities for reform and modest improvements to civil liberties.

This report has been abridged for Freedom on the Net 2025 due to ongoing budget constraints. Please consider making a donation to support future editions of this vital resource.

For additional background information, see last year’s full report.

A Obstacles to Access

A1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do infrastructural limitations restrict access to the internet or the speed and quality of internet connections? 6.006 6.006
A2 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Is access to the internet prohibitively expensive or beyond the reach of certain segments of the population for geographical, social, or other reasons? 3.003 3.003
A3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the government exercise technical or legal control over internet infrastructure for the purposes of restricting connectivity? 5.005 6.006
A4 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are there legal, regulatory, or economic obstacles that restrict the diversity of service providers? 4.004 6.006
A5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do national regulatory bodies that oversee service providers and digital technology fail to operate in a free, fair, and independent manner? 1.001 4.004

B Limits on Content

B1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 3.003 6.006
B2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do state or nonstate actors employ legal, administrative, or other means to force publishers, content hosts, or digital platforms to delete content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 2.002 4.004
B3 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? 2.002 4.004
B4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do online journalists, commentators, and ordinary users practice self-censorship? 2.002 4.004
B5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are online sources of information controlled or manipulated by the government or other powerful actors to advance a particular political interest? 2.002 4.004
B6 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are there economic or regulatory constraints that negatively affect users’ ability to publish content online? 2.002 3.003
B7 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the online information landscape lack diversity and reliability? 3.003 4.004
B8 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do conditions impede users’ ability to mobilize, form communities, and campaign, particularly on political and social issues? 5.005 6.006

C Violations of User Rights

C1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence? 2.002 6.006
C2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 1.001 4.004
C3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 3.003 6.006
C4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or encryption? 3.003 4.004
C5 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on users’ right to privacy? 2.002 6.006
C6 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on users’ right to privacy? 4.004 6.006
C7 1.00-5.00 pts0-5 pts
Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities? 3.003 5.005
C8 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individual users subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack? 2.002 3.003

On Malaysia

See all data, scores & information on this country or territory.

See More

Country Facts

  • Population

    33,940,000

  • Global Freedom Score

    53 100 partly free

  • Internet Freedom Score

    60 100 partly free

  • Freedom in the World Status

    Partly Free

  • Networks Restricted

    No

  • Websites Blocked

    Yes

  • Pro-government Commentators

    Yes

  • Users Arrested

    Yes