High Court ruling underscores that online platforms offer no shield against defamation law, as ex‑employee ordered to apologise, remove posts, and pay RM200,000 damages to cybersecurity firm and executives.
By Dr Mohd Safar Hasim
On October 15, 2025, the Malaysian High Court issued a ruling that should reverberate across the country’s digital and corporate landscape. In LE Global Services Sdn Bhd & Ors v Lai Zhen Yean, Justice Roz Mawar Rozain found a former employee liable for defaming his ex-employer and its senior executives through a series of online posts and an article.
The court ordered him to remove the content, publish a public apology, and pay RM50,000 in damages to each of the four plaintiffs — a total of RM200,000.
It is a ‘live’ reminder: cyberspace offers no immunity from defamation law. The assumption that online platforms are “safer” or less accountable has been steadily dismantled by Malaysian courts over the past two decades. This latest ruling confirms it in real time.
Defamation is defamation, regardless of medium. Whether it appears in a newspaper column, a Facebook post, or a LinkedIn article, the law applies with equal force.
The High Court’s ruling underscores that the digital world is not a parallel legal universe. Every online post is a publication under the law, and reputational harm caused online is treated as seriously — if not more so — than harm caused in print. The case also highlights a growing reality: workplace disputes do not end at the office door. When grievances spill into cyberspace, they can escalate into costly legal battles.
The court’s decision makes clear that ex-employees cannot weaponise digital platforms against their former employers without consequence.
This decision is the latest step in a legal trajectory that has unfolded over nearly two decades. In 2007, a popular blogger’s case signalled that bloggers could be sued just like traditional journalists. Five years later, in 2012, the courts held news portal liable for defamatory user comments, extending responsibility to digital intermediaries.
Between 2016 and 2020, politicians and individuals alike faced damages for Facebook and blog posts, proving that personal liability was no longer theoretical.
In 2023, the courts extended liability to workplace disputes, showing that ex-employees who defame their former employers online could be held accountable.
The latest ruling confirms that Malaysian companies are prepared to pursue legal remedies aggressively, and that the courts are willing to grant them.
The implications are significant. For individuals, the ruling is a warning that online speech is not casual or consequence-free.
Many Malaysians still treat social media as a private diary or a chat among friends. In reality, every post is a public act of publication.
The permanence and reach of digital platforms magnify liability, not diminish it. For companies, the case affirms that reputations can and should be defended against digital attacks.
In an era where corporate credibility is tied to investor confidence and client trust, companies cannot afford to ignore defamatory content. The High Court’s decision provides a clear legal pathway for firms to protect themselves.
For society, the ruling signals that freedom of expression must be balanced with responsibility. Malaysia’s courts are not curtailing speech; they are applying long-standing principles of accountability to new platforms. This balance is essential in an age where false claims can spread instantly and widely, causing disproportionate harm.
The LE Global Services ruling is not an isolated event. It is part of a broader judicial trend: the steady integration of digital speech into the framework of defamation law.
This trajectory raises important civic questions. How can Malaysia ensure that defamation law protects reputations without chilling legitimate whistleblowing or criticism?
Should damages for online defamation be higher, given the viral nature of digital content?
How will the courts handle emerging challenges such as anonymous Telegram leaks, viral TikTok videos, or AI-generated defamatory content?
These questions will shape the next phase of Malaysia’s legal adaptation to the digital age.
The ruling also has implications for employment relations. Companies now have a clear precedent to act against former employees who damage reputations online.
At the same time, employees must be assured that legitimate grievances — such as whistleblowing on corruption or malpractice — are not silenced under the guise of defamation. The line between accountability and suppression will need careful judicial navigation.
Malaysia is not alone in this trajectory. Courts in Singapore, the UK, and Australia have similarly extended defamation law into the digital sphere.
In Singapore, for example, individuals have been held liable for defamatory Facebook posts, with damages running into six figures.
In the UK, the Defamation Act 2013 explicitly addressed online publication, balancing free speech with protection of reputation.
Malaysia’s approach is distinctive in its reliance on the Defamation Act 1957, a statute drafted in a pre-digital era but applied with remarkable flexibility. This continuity underscores the adaptability of common law principles: the medium may change, but the underlying values of accountability and reputation remain constant.
The High Court’s decision in LE Global Services v Lai Zhen Yean underscores a simple truth: there is no safe space for defamation, not even online. The digital world is not a separate legal universe. It is part of the same public sphere where reputations are built and destroyed.
For individuals, the lesson is caution. For companies, it is reassurance. For society, it is a reminder that freedom of expression carries responsibility.
As Malaysia deepens its digital economy, this balance will only grow more critical.
The ruling is not just another case in the law reports. It is a live signal that the courts are watching, that reputations matter, and that the myth of digital immunity has finally been laid to rest.
The views expressed here are entirely those of Dr Mohd Safar Hasim, a Council Member of the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI)