Stalking: The Newly Criminalized Act in Malaysia
ARTICLECRIMINAL
Khadijah Azman
9/27/20262 min read
For many years, victims of persistent harassment, physical tracking, or digital obsession in Malaysia faced a glaring legal void. Unless a stalker committed physical assault, property damage, or explicit criminal intimidation, law enforcement lacked a dedicated legal mechanism to intervene early. That structural gap was officially closed when Malaysia criminalized stalking through the insertion of Section 507A into the Penal Code. This milestone reform recognized that continuous, unwanted attention inflicts severe psychological harm and fear, establishing stalking as a distinct criminal offense rather than a mere personal nuisance.
Under Section 507A(1) of the Penal Code, a person commits stalking if they repeatedly, by any act of harassment, intend to cause, or know or ought to know that their act is likely to cause distress, fear, or alarm to any person regarding their safety. The statute defines "repeatedly" as engaging in such behavior on at least two separate occasions. Actionable acts of harassment under Section 507A(2) include following or tracking a person, communicating or attempting to communicate by any means, loitering near a target’s residence or workplace, or sending unwanted items. Offenders face penalties of up to three years in prison, a fine, or both.
To provide immediate safety to victims, Section 98A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) empowers the court to issue a Protection Order against an alleged stalker. However, the legal threshold for granting such protection remains strict. In Natasha Devi Devan v. Devan Chendu & Anor [2025] 1 SMC 583, the court addressed the boundaries of anti-stalking laws within existing family structures. The court clarified that the statute must not be weaponized to litigate ongoing familial grievances or personal disputes between parties bound by natural relationships. Where interactions stem from natural or family dynamics rather than true criminal stalking, filingrepetitive police reports without objective proof of harm or an active police investigation will beviewed as an abuse of the court process.
Conversely, where genuine criminal stalking occurs, Malaysian courts have shown a firm commitment to imposing deterrent sentences. In Public Prosecutor v. Lee Soon Keng [2025] MLJU 2186, the accused engaged in a relentless campaign of physical and online harassment, includingpuncturing car tires, loitering outside the victim's apartment late at night, tracking her movements, and threatening to leak private media. The court emphasized that such pervasive behavior inflicts severe trauma and destabilizes a victim's daily life, affirming that custodial sentences combined with substantial fines are necessary to serve public interest and deter repeat offenders.
Navigating complaints or defending against harassment allegations under Section 507A requires a delicate legal balance. Victims must ensure their claims are backed by verified digital logs, clear CCTV evidence, and active police investigations. Meanwhile, individuals facing false accusations within complex personal relationships must act quickly to expose procedural errors and unverified claims. At Puvarasan & Associates, our legal team stays at the forefront of criminal law developments to protect your safety, safeguard your reputation, and preserve your constitutional rights.
Contributed by:
Khadijah Azman
Pupil-in-Chambers
Contacts
06 - 794 7480 || 012 - 441 7119
general@puvarasanassociates.com
2025 || PUVARASAN & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS || WEB DESIGN BY AMIRUL SYAFIQ
