Report: Censorship of LGBTIQ Expression under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA)
Survey findings:
Conversion Practices or Efforts to Change LGBTIQ+ People in Malaysia
Survey findings:
Conversion Practices or Efforts to Change LGBTIQ+ People in Malaysia
{pods_resources_highlights}
Criminalisation
Freedom of Expression
Discrimination
July 15, 2025
“Censorship of LGBTIQ Expression under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA)” highlights the increasing weaponisation of the PPPA to suppress freedom of expression and deepen discrimination against LGBTIQ and gender-diverse people.
Between 2020 and May 2025, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) was used at least 13 times to censor lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and gender-diverse (LGBTIQ) related publications, including Swatch watches with LGBTIQ-related imprints under the guise of protecting public morality.
(The data has been updated based on our monitoring.)
This report analyses the compatibility of the PPPA with the standards set by international human rights law by measuring various provisions in the PPPA against the requirements of the three-part test — legality, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality.
The report finds that:
1. The PPPA restricts freedom of expression in the following ways —
a. restrictions of artistic freedom through the banning of publications;
b. restrictions on the ability to impart and receive information;
c. restriction of media freedom through licensing regulations;
d. reinforcement of hostility and discrimination towards LGBTIQ people with impunity, as the PPPA encourages public complaints against “undesirable publications”.
2. The PPPA falls short of the minimum standards set by international human rights law relating to freedom of expression, as the law
a. has overbroad definitions,
b. grants the state excessive power to regulate information and expressions,
c. lacks judicial oversight,
d. uses discriminatory intent as a legitimate aim to pursue restrictions on freedom of expression, and
e. allows disproportionate criminal penalties.
3. A trend of weaponisation of public morality and public order against LGBTIQ publications against the backdrop of a state-led anti-LGBT normalisation campaign.
Discriminatory state actions, including the presence of anti-LGBTIQ laws and weaponisation of public morality, public order and national security, cannot be used as a legitimate aim to justify the restriction of freedom of expression of LGBTIQ people.
In the case of Macate vs Lithuania, the principle of non-discrimination was central to the Supreme Court decision. The Court stressed that a legislative ban on “promotion of homosexuality or non-traditional sexual relations” among minors does not serve to advance the legitimate aims of protection of morals, health or the rights of others, and that by adopting such laws, the state reinforces stigma and prejudice against LGBTIQ+ people and encourages homophobia, which is incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society.’
4. In contrast, in the case of ‘Gay is OK’, Section 377 of the Penal Code — a gender neutral law criminalising carnal intercourse — was used by the Minister of Home Affairs and the courts to vilify LGBTIQ people and justify the ban.
Among others, this reflects a lack of appreciation and application of the principle of non-discrimination and other fundamental liberties provisions in the Federal Constitution.
5. Relatedly, the application and appreciation of international human rights law in Malaysia must be increased all around to ensure enjoyment of human rights by all.
This can be achieved through the domestication of existing human rights treaties to give them full legal effect, training of judges and government actors to ensure the fair and consistent application of international human rights law, and the implementation of treaty body recommendations. In tandem with that, the increasing state-endorsed discrimination against LGBTIQ people must be addressed immediately.
The Ministry of Home Affairs announced its plans to amend the PPPA instead of repealing it as recommended by various human rights actors. Civil society organisations have long advocated for the Act’s repeal to strengthen media freedoms and end censorship of information through bans of publications consistent with international human rights law related to freedom of expression, equality and non-discrimination.
The proposed amendments include:
- Reinstatement of the license and permit renewals (every three years) for media companies;
- Regulation of digital media by expanding the definition of publications to include digital and electronic content, potentially also including content on apps;
- Expansion of “undesirable publications” to include matters relating to the 3R (race, religion, and royalty);
- Expansion of criminal penalties. This includes a proposed three years’ jail time or a fine of up to RM100,000, or both for violation of newspaper publication permit conditions;
- Expansion of powers of search and seizure.
Take action
Join the call to repeal the PPPA and sign the petition now!
Use our social media resources to raise awareness on the PPPA
5 Key Highlights from the Report
Social-Media-Toolkit_5-Key-HighlightsWatch our Video Explainers on the PPPA!
Publication date
July 2025
Organisations
Justice for Sisters and Amnesty International Malaysia
Writers, editors, & designers
Bryan Cheah, thilaga sulathireh, Nalini Elumalai, Suriani Kempe, Kamal Aarif K., Jun Kit
Translators
Ahmad Yasin
Infographic designers
Numan Afifi
Video producers
Deborah Augustin and Hidayah Hisham
Video translators
Cik Mus and Azzad Mahdzir