.png)
IN Malaysia's increasingly digital political landscape, influence has become a commodity, with political campaigns, businesses and influencers relying on online engagement to shape public perception.
However, religious and legal experts warn that there is a clear line between legitimate digital marketing and political messaging, and coordinated campaigns that humiliate, harass or spread falsehoods for financial gain.
Kelantan Mufti Datuk Mohamad Shukri Mohamad said that from an Islamic perspective, any income derived from insulting, slandering or deliberately damaging another person's reputation online is unlawful, regardless of whether the motive is political or commercial.
"If someone is paid to attack or defame another person online, then that income is considered unlawful. It is very simple in Islam – if the source is haram, then the income is also haram," he told Sinar Daily.
He said responsibility does not rest solely with those posting abusive content but also with those who finance such activities, including political parties, campaign operators and individuals who commission online attacks.
"The moral and religious responsibility applies to both sides – those who carry out the act and those who pay for it. Especially when it causes mental stress or harm to others, it becomes an even greater wrongdoing," he said.
Shukri added that Islam encourages restraint and civility in online interactions, particularly during periods of heightened political activity when public discourse can become increasingly hostile and divisive.
While the ethical implications are clear, legal experts say Malaysian law is also evolving to address online abuse, including cyberbullying linked to political activity.
Lawyer Fatihah Jamhari noted that cyberbullying has been criminalised under the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2025 and cautioned that individuals operating anonymous or politically motivated accounts should not assume they are beyond the reach of authorities.
"With advancements in tracing and tracking systems, it is becoming much easier to identify cybertroopers even when they operate under false identities," she said.
However, she acknowledged that proving payments were made specifically to facilitate cyberbullying remains challenging, as such transactions are often disguised as legitimate digital services or campaign-related work.
Lawyer Salim Bashir warned that the commercialisation of online attacks, whether driven by politics or business interests, risks normalising harassment and further degrading public discourse.
"Sexist comments, hate speech, body shaming and foul language all contribute to an unhealthy online culture. Both cyberbullies and those responsible for paying them should be brought to justice," he said.
Digital communication experts have similarly cautioned that coordinated online campaigns, particularly during election periods, can distort public perception by creating the illusion of widespread support, outrage or consensus through organised activity across multiple accounts.
As concerns over misinformation and algorithm-driven engagement continue to grow, observers say the debate extends beyond law enforcement.
At its core lies a broader ethical question: whether political or financial incentives can ever justify harming another person's dignity, reputation or well-being online.
