Stalking Law in Malaysia: Is Section 507A really working?
Authored by Pravin Rakawan
Introduction
Prior to 2023, stalking was not an expressly recognised crime in Malaysia. A victim who was followed, watched, or bombarded with messages had to rely on the general offence of criminal intimidation under the Penal Code, offences under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, or a prohibitory injunction, none of which was specifically designed to address the harm caused by stalking.
This changed on 31 May 2023, when Section 507A of the Penal Code came into force, criminalising stalking, both in person and online, for the first time. Three years on, one might ask how effective the Section 507A has been? This article traces the first two reported stalking cases to assess how the law has performed in practice and what are the practical measures available to stalking victim.
The Legal Framework
Section 507A(1) makes it an offence to repeatedly, by any act of harassment, intend to cause, or know or ought to know is likely to cause, distress, fear or alarm as to a person's safety. “Repeatedly” is defined as at least two occasions.
Section 507A(2) defines harassment broadly to include following or tracking a person, communicating or attempting to communicate with them, loitering at their home or workplace, or sending them anything by any means. The maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Section 98A (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a victim of the offence under Section 507A to apply to the court, ex parte, for a Protection Order against a person under investigation for stalking, without needing to wait for a conviction or even a completed trial. This gives the victim a direct route to court-ordered relief while the criminal process is still underway, rather than only after it concludes.
The First Prosecution Under Section 507A – Acacia Mardiana Daud Case
Mohamad Safiq Rosli was the first person ever charged under Section 507A in 2023, for stalking photographer Acacia Mardiana Daud. The accused initially pleaded not guilty, then changed his plea to guilty in December 2023. However, on the date set for sentencing, the Magistrate rejected the guilty plea after a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation raised the possibility that he was of unsound mind, and ordered a full trial instead.
At that trial, the defence successfully raised insanity under Sections 84 and 87 of the Penal Code, supported by a forensic psychiatrist's evidence that Safiq's schizophrenia had caused a delusional belief that he was in a relationship with the victim. The Magistrate found he was of unsound mind at the material time, discharged and acquitted him under Section 347 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Nevertheless, Safiq was ordered to be detained at the Ruler's pleasure under Section 348, meaning indefinite hospital detention rather than a fixed sentence.
The decision turned entirely on the insanity defence and did not reach the substantive requirements of Section 507A. This is the real reason the Court in PP v Lee Soon Keng, a year and a half later, still had no local precedent to draw on for sentencing guidance. Malaysia's first-ever stalking prosecution had been resolved without a conviction under the section.
The First Conviction Under Section 507A - PP v Lee Soon Keng
The first substantive test of the provision on its merits came in PP v Lee Soon Keng, heard at the Magistrate's Court, Kuala Lumpur.
The accused pleaded guilty to stalking and harassing the victim over several months in 2024, including damaging her property, following her, and threatening to circulate private material and defamatory claims about her.
The Court sentenced him to one (1) day's imprisonment and a RM6,000 fine, in default six (6) months' imprisonment. The prosecution has appealed the sentence as inadequate given the severity of the conduct and the trauma caused. It is important to note that the sentencing judge came to the decision based on the guilty plea by the accused and the fact that there were still no reported Malaysian cases on Section 507A to draw guidance from.
For the victim, the case delivered what the previous case could not: a conviction, a sentence, and a formal Court record that what happened to her was a crime. Although the sentence may not be reflective of the harm suffered by the victim, the charge, conviction and the prosecution's appeal against the sentence demonstrate the legal system's continuing effort to address stalking.
How Section 507A helps Victim of Stalking
Section 507A provides several important avenues of protection for victims: -
Criminalisation of stalking allows a victim to lodge a police complaint against the stalker under a specific criminal provision;
Section 507A covers both physical and virtual stalking, recognising that stalking can occur both in person and through digital communications; and
A victim can seek preventive protection through a Protection Order under Section 98A(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as safety measure.
Practical Steps for a Victim
In the event you experience stalking, these are the immediate steps to be taken to protect yourself and preserve potential legal action against the stalker: -
Keep a written record of every incident, noting the date, time and what happened, since Section 507A requires proof of at least two occasions of harassment;
Preserve evidence as it comes in, including screenshots of messages, call logs, photographs and CCTV footage;
Lodge a police report after each incident, not only the first, so that the investigation reflects the full pattern of conduct;
Apply for a Protection Order under Section 98A of the Criminal Procedure Code as soon as an investigation is underway, rather than waiting for it to conclude;
Engage a lawyer early, so that the police report, Protection Order application and any parallel civil claims can be considered and handled together rather than in isolation.
Conclusion
Section 507A closed a real gap in Malaysian criminal law by expressly recognising stalking as a crime. However, the first two cases illustrate how slowly a new offence can build the body of precedent needed for its consistent application by the Courts.
The very first prosecution ended in an insanity acquittal rather than a conviction, while the first real sentencing decision in Lee Soon Keng had no local precedent to draw on for sentencing guidance and is now being appealed as being too lenient.
As more cases are reported and decided by the Courts, the guidance available to victims, lawyers and the Courts will only grow. But even at this early stage, the provision is already giving stalking victims in Malaysia a specific criminal law framework and real avenues of protection, which is a promising development.
Bibliography
Penal Code (Act 574), s 507A ss 84 and 87
Criminal Procedure Code, ss 347 and 348
PP v Lee Soon Keng [2025] MLJU 2186
“In Malaysia’s first stalking case, court rules man to be detained at His Majesty’s pleasure”, Malay Mail, 17 January 2024
Kindly note that this legal article does not, and is not intended to, constitute formal legal advice by the Firm, instead all information, content and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. If readers require further clarification or legal advice, please email office@kevinwuassociates.com
