The recent crackdown on sex toy retailers[1], under the auspices of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA), has left many wondering if owning these pleasure products is even legal. The answer, unfortunately, is shrouded in more grey areas than a Fifty Shades novel.
The PPPA designed to regulate printing and publication matters, contains broad provisions against the possession, sale, or distribution of “undesirable” publications[2]. Unfortunately, “undesirable” is not defined in the PPPA and subject to significant government discretion and court interpretation.
The use of the PPPA is designed primarily to regulate publications. So, could a sex toy be construed a publication? Shockingly, it appears that a sex toy may actually be construed to be a “publication” in light of section 2 which provides it to be “anything which by its form, shape or in any manner is capable of suggesting words or ideas”.
So, it is possible then to construe that a sex toy by its form, shape and even its use, suggest ideas relating to sexual activity, which paradoxically is likely to be deemed “undesirable” under the law. However, the Minister must first gazette an order under section 7(1) of the PPPA to prohibit the sex toy, upon which it will be unlawful to possess it.
A review of the relevant published gazettes to date reveals that not a single sex toy has made the list.
A recent example of the expanded application of the PPPA is the seizure of the rainbow-coloured Swatch watches purportedly because it promoted the LQBTQIA+[3] movement. However, the prohibition on the rainbow Swatch watches was only gazetted 3 months after the raid on the Swatch stores[4]! This begs the question, how were the watches in violation of the PPPA at the time of the raid?
Separately, Section 292 of the Penal Code appears to have a more direct impact on sex toys. It prohibits the sale, distribution, production, possession, and advertising of “obscene” materials, carrying a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or a fine or both[5]. The test for obscenity is whether the publication has the potential to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall[6].
Some quarters would certainly argue that a sex toy is corrupting and immoral.
Looking at past applications of Section 292, a key theme emerges: the emphasis on distribution and public exposure. In the case of Muhamad Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor, the accused possessed a large quantity of a books deemed obscene, potentially leading to its further circulation. The Court’s decision to convict the accused highlights the protection of the public, especially young people, from the corrupting influence of such material[7].
This week, a 29-year-old businesswoman in Penang was charged, convicted and fined RM2,000 for the possession of a staggering stash of 102 sex toys[8]. It is unclear whether the possession of just one sex toy will be treated with the same kind of severity by the law.
The takeaway? Even though sex toys have yet to officially make the naughty list under the PPPA, they still seem to get tangled up in Section 292 of the Penal Code. It’s safe to say that pleasure seekers might find themselves in a bit of a sticky situation if found to be toying around with these items!
[1] https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2024/02/15/home-ministry-seizes-rm70000-worth-of-sex-toys-nationwide-johor-tops-the-list/118148.
[2] Section 7(1) Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.
[3] Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual.
[4] Printing Presses and Publications (Prohibition of Undesirable Publications) Order 2023.
[5] Section 292 Penal Code.
[6] Lord Cockburn C.J. in Reg v Hicklin [1868] LR 3 QB 360.
[7] Muhamad Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [1963] 1 MLJ 289.
[8] https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2024/05/1056470/female-trader-pleads-guilty-possessing-102-sex-toys
About the Author
Dyana Parmar is a Pupil-in-Chambers at XK Law. She assists the partners of the firm in civil litigation with a focus on debt recovery, landlord and tenancy matters, and corporate commercial disputes. Committed to making a positive impact, Dyana aims to contribute to a better world through her career as an advocate and solicitor.
