Malaysia Must Withdraw Government SLAPP action against HRD Murray Hunter in Thailand’s Criminal Court

Thailand must refuse to allow its criminal courts to be used for SLAPP actions by anyone, even fellow ASEAN member States

We, the 44 undersigned groups and organizations, including the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (OMCT-FIDH), call upon the Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Communication Minister Fahmi Fadzil and the government of Malaysia to forthwith withdraw the SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) criminal complaint and case against Human Rights Defender (HRD) and social commentator Murray Hunter, that was lodged in Thailand by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), a government entity, that has now resulted in Murray Hunter being charged and indicted for criminal defamation in the Thailand Criminal Courts. (Star,3/10/2025).

Murray is now facing a criminal charge of defamation under Section 328 (defamation by publication) of the Thai Criminal Code, where if he is found guilty, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand Baht or to both. By reason of this charge, he, who was arrested on 29/9/2025, and after a night in jail he was freed on bail of 20,000 baht, his passport was confiscated and he is not allowed to leave Bangkok pending the outcome of legal proceedings.(Bangkok Post, 18/11/2025)

Murray was indicted on 17/11/2025 for 4 charges of publishing four articles on his Substack blog about the MCMC, which means he is liable for a maximum of 8 years imprisonment and a fine of 800,000 Baht (about USD25,000) if convicted. The trial is now fixed to begin on 22/12/2025 after being indicted on a charge of defaming the Malaysian.(Bangkok Post, 18/11/2025) (THLR Website)

Use of SLAPP action by any Government is UNACCEPTABLE

It is shocking that this SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against a HRD, which are usually used by alleged perpetrators that are private corporations and powerful individuals, is shockingly now used by a State - the Malaysian government, via the MCMC.

A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is the use of lawsuits (criminal or civil suits) filed to silence individuals or groups who speak out on issues of public importance. These lawsuits can be brought by various entities, including governments or government-affiliated bodies, to intimidate and financially drain critics, journalists, activists, and public officials – and also to DETER other HRDs from highlighting wrongs in the future.

‘In international law, States assume the duties to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. Under those obligations, States shall not only refrain from engaging in abusive lawsuits, but also take positive measures to ensure that third parties do not use SLAPPs as tools to silence those exerting legitimately their rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’ - UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner’s report entitled The impact of SLAPPs on human rights & how to respond

Some countries have recently rightly moved towards enacting anti-SLAPP laws, which have been adopted in common law, civil law and mixed legal systems, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.

In Thailand, ‘the Royal Thai Government Gazette has officially published the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption (No. 2), B.E. 2568 (2025), with the primary aim of strengthening protections for whistleblowers and fostering greater public participation in the fight against corruption. The law now explicitly incorporates Anti-SLAPP principles, shielding individuals who, in good faith, report wrongdoing, provide evidence, or express opinions that aid in official duties or pertain to offences under the National Anti-Corruption Commission(NACC)’s jurisdiction (Bangkok Post, 6/6/2025). More Anti-SLAPP laws are imminent.

Murray raises concerns, amongst others, as to whether the Malaysia’s MCMC have been faithfully carrying out its statutory duties. Concern raised about whether there is preferential treatment of certain persons and/or entities, including companies linked to existing MCMC Commissioners. Rightly, MCMC and other relevant authorities should be investigating allegations and/or concerns raised by Murray, and not ‘attacking’ such whistle blowers and those who highlight possible wrongdoings or shortcomings.

In this case, a perusal of the charges in Thailand Criminal Court, as found in the Thai Lawyers For Human Rights website, suggests that this case falls within the scope of falls within the scope of the Anti-SLAPP principles of Thailand. This must be considered a matter of public interest as it relates about alleged abuses, wrongdoings, failures and mis-governance of this Malaysian law enforcement body, the MCMC.

Further, the MCMC itself has a portal called sebenarnya.my , whereby it analyses alleged ‘fake’ news, and informs the public why it is false citing credible sources. As such, if and when Murray had published/circulated any alleged ‘fake news’, this portal ought to have been used to debunk any falsehood with credible evidence – and not the use of SLAPP actions against Murray. Did MCMC even use their own mechanism, when it came to Murray Hunter’s allegedly false statements, and if not, why?

Malaysia Has the Duty To Protect HR Defenders – Not Act Against Them

Malaysia, as any United Nation member State, has the duty and obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, their freedom of expression including their right to raise issues of alleged wrongdoings or issues of mis-governance more so after the UNITED NATIONS General Assembly on 8/3/1998 by resolution adopted the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(commonly known as the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration)

Murray Hunter, a former lecturer in University Malaysia in the State of Perlis, is a HR Defender, who has the freedom of expression and opinion, and also do have the right to highlight or ‘…to complain about the policies and actions of individual officials and governmental bodies with regard to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’.

All States, including Malaysia, has the duty to protect HR Defenders. ‘The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the… HR Defenders Declaration (Art.12(2) HR Defenders Declaration).

‘In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’ (Art. 12(3)).

The State have NO ‘…right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms…’ of any HR Defender. (Art. 19)

As such it was wrong for the Malaysia through MCMC to take any retaliatory action against HRD Murray Hunter, even if or when he raised issues or concerns about MCMC, the police or even the government – as he, like any other persons or HR Defenders, has the right to also raise omissions or actions of any government body or person.

Transborder SLAPP Attack by Government Through Criminal Action in Another Country Is An Appalling Violation of Human Rights

The allegation of CRIME committed by Murray to date has not led to any criminal charges being filed in the Malaysian criminal courts, and that means that the Malaysian police and/or law enforcement, and/or the Public Prosecutor did not find it a crime, or did not find sufficient evidence to charge him for criminal defamation or any other crimes in Malaysia after MCMC filed a a police report in Malaysia on or about 24/4/2024, (MCMC Website). According to said MCMC’s Statement it said, amongst others, that Murray in his writings allegedly was ‘accusing MCMC of acting beyond its jurisdiction for self-interest. He also accused MCMC and PDRM of intimidating the public.’(‘…menuduh MCMC bertindak melangkaui bidang kuasanya untuk kepentingan diri. Beliau turut melemparkan tohmahan bahawa MCMC dan PDRM bertindak menakut-nakutkan Masyarakat….).

Malaysia not charging Murray for the crime of criminal defamation may be similar to the situation that the led to the Malaysian Attorney-General’s Chambers issuing ‘… "No Further Action" directive against Bloomberg, following Bloomberg’s report claiming that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission acted on the Prime Minister’s instructions in investigating certain individuals. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, in a written parliamentary reply, stated that the directive was issued as “there was insufficient evidence in the investigation papers…”(Vibes, 5/11/2025).

Whilst Malaysia itself did not commence any criminal action, oddly Thailand, acting on the Malaysian government’s criminal complaint, has now charged Murray for criminal defamation. Are the legal standards in Malaysia not the same as Thailand?

SOVEREIGNITY and using laws of other countries to prosecute crimes against Government?

For Malaysian government and government entities, they should only be using the Malaysian law – and never the laws or the administration of criminal justice mechanism or processes in some other jurisdiction or country, which may be also be different from the laws and rules in Malaysia.

The Malaysian Federal Constitution states that ‘(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law (Art. 5(1), and also that ‘(1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed.(Art. 7(1)).

The ‘LAW’ referred to in the Malaysian Constitution is the Malaysian Law – not the Laws of Thailand, or the Laws of any other country. It must be the Malaysian Law, the Malaysian Courts – more so when the alleged victim of the crime is the Malaysian government or its entity as in this case.

To use other country’s laws, which are most likely different from Malaysia’s own laws, legal standards and court processes may be seen as an unconstitutional act, disrespecting Malaysia’s own sovereignty and Malaysian laws.

If Malaysia wanted to charge Murray Hunter for ‘Criminal Defamation’, then it should do so in Malaysia but law enforcement decided not to until now.

Remember, Malaysia could have investigated Murray Hunter in Malaysia, and even charged him in Malaysia if it was a crime, or there was sufficient evidence. If Malaysia wanted Murray Hunter in Malaysia, they could have applied to get Thailand to send Murray to Malaysia.

Even if Murray Hunter could not be physically brought to Court, Malaysian law today allows for him to be charged in the Malaysian courts and Malaysia’s Section 425A of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a trial to proceed if the accused fails or refuses to attend.

Thus, we call on Malaysia to justly stop or cause the withdrawal of the criminal defamation case against Murray Hunter in Thailand, initiated by the actions of Malaysian government’s MCMC.

If Malaysia withdraws the criminal complaint, and inform the Thailand Courts, most likely the criminal charges against Murray will be dropped in Thailand.

Malaysia – BAD and Dangerous Precedence of use of SLAPP against HRDs

To date, no corporation or powerful individuals in Malaysia has resorted to using SLAPP actions against HRDs in other jurisdictions, other than in Malaysia using Malaysia’s laws and courts, and, as such, this criminal SLAPP action is a dangerous UNJUST PRECEDENT by the Malaysian government. It may lead to possible future SLAPP actions against HRDs in Malaysia by private companies and persons in Malaysia also using laws and courts in other countries?

Thus, we, the undersigned groups and organizations:

1. Call on the Malaysian government, and/or the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to forthwith cause to withdraw the criminal complaint and criminal defamation case against HRD Murray Hunter in Thailand criminal courts,
2. Call on the government of Thailand, that have already adopted Anti-SLAPP principles and are enacting anti-SLAPP laws, to not allow its laws and its criminal courts to be used wrongly by other nations to commence SLAPP actions against HR Defenders who highlighted alleged wrongs or mis-governance issues of Malaysian government or its entities. Drop the criminal defamation charges against Murray Hunter.
3. Noting that Article 39 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration 2012 already states that ‘ASEAN Member States share a common interest in and commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms’, which also includes ‘..the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information, whether orally, in writing or through any other medium of that person’s choice’(Art.23), and as such all ASEAN member States must do more to protect Human Rights Defenders, by also enacting anti-SLAPP laws. Malaysia, as current ASEAN Chair, must lead by good example.
4. Call on Malaysia and all governments to refrain from engaging in abusive lawsuits, but also take positive measures to ensure that third parties do not use SLAPPs as tools to silence those exerting legitimately their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.

Charles Hector

Ng Yap Hwa