Malaysian deputy minister urges use of ‘deviant culture’ to describe sexual minorities
Marhamah Rosli, the deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, provoked controversy in parliament by urging the public and the press to stop using the phrase “LGBT community“. She instead recommended the term “deviant culture” for sexual minorities and transgender people. The comments were made during a parliamentary question time in response to a senator asking what steps the government is taking to monitor private gatherings of sexual minorities.
The exchange underscored tensions over terminology, state surveillance and public policy on gender and sexual diversity. Critics said the language risks legitimising discrimination and expanding grounds for surveillance. Supporters argued the wording reflects the government’s stance on morality and public order.
The debate raises questions about how official language shapes enforcement and social norms. From a governance perspective, word choice by public officials can affect legal interpretation and administrative action. Legal experts and rights groups warn that framing a group as a “deviant culture” could justify stricter monitoring or enforcement measures against private assemblies.
Parliamentary records show the minister’s remarks took place during routine question time. The incident has prompted responses from civil society organisations and media watchdogs calling for clarification of government policy and commitments to human rights protections.
Reporting on the episode continues as observers seek details on any concrete steps the government intends to take following the exchange. Leading companies and institutions monitoring social risk will likely watch for policy shifts that could affect discrimination, public order enforcement and Malaysia’s international standing on human rights.
Immediate reactions from rights groups
Domestic and international rights organisations criticised the deputy minister’s remarks and raised concerns about potential harm to sexual minorities in Malaysia.
Groups said the warning that using the term LGBT could trigger algorithmic amplification risks further marginalising vulnerable people. They argued platform dynamics can amplify stigma and increase exposure to harassment.
Several organisations noted that monitoring by the Islamic Development Department‘s research unit, combined with official support for faith-based conversion programs and anti-LGBT initiatives in schools, creates an environment that may normalise discrimination and coercive interventions.
From an ESG perspective, some observers warned these developments carry reputational and diplomatic risks. They said governments, employers and multilateral partners will likely watch for policy shifts that affect human rights, public order enforcement and Malaysia’s international standing.
Rights advocates called for clear safeguards to protect freedom of expression and the safety of sexual minorities. They urged transparency on monitoring practices and independent oversight of any programmes targeting LGBTQ individuals.
Human rights advocates and LGBTQIA+ organisations immediately condemned the remarks. Groups such as Justice for Sisters described the deputy minister’s language as discriminatory and harmful. They said the statements conflict with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations. Critics added that framing sexual and gender diversity as “deviant” contradicts guidance from global medical authorities. Leading bodies have stated that variations in sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics represent natural human diversity rather than pathologies.
Why language matters
Words from public officials can shape policy, service provision and social norms. Medical and human rights groups warned that stigmatizing language increases barriers to healthcare and legal protection for vulnerable people. From an ESG perspective, discriminatory rhetoric poses reputational and operational risks for institutions that serve diverse communities.
Sustainability is a business case: exclusion and marginalization create social costs and undermine inclusion efforts. Companies, public services and NGOs that assess risks across scope 1-2-3 and social indicators will regard systemic discrimination as a material issue.
Advocates urged clear commitments to non-discrimination, independent oversight of monitoring practices and transparency about any programmes affecting LGBTQIA+ people. They called for training for officials and health providers aligned with international standards and best practice frameworks such as the GRI and SASB.
Human rights advocates say a shift in official language from “LGBT” to “deviant culture” does more than rename a group. They say the new terminology frames sexual and gender identities as morally unacceptable and creates conditions for stigma, exclusion and violence. Human rights defenders warn the wording can be used to justify discriminatory policies, spread misinformation and embolden actors seeking to restrict the dignity and equality of sexual minorities.
Legal experts contacted by advocates describe potential constitutional implications. They say the language raises concerns about breaches of protections for personal liberty and equal protection under the law. Courts and civil society organisations are likely to scrutinise any policies that rely on such framing.
International human rights monitors argue the shift fits a broader pattern of enforcement and closures targeting organisations that support sexual minorities. They note that rhetoric which delegitimises identities often precedes restrictive regulatory measures and law enforcement actions.
Context: a broader pattern of enforcement and closures
Advocates reiterated their earlier call for training for officials and health providers aligned with international standards and best-practice frameworks such as the GRI and SASB. They said education can reduce harm and ensure services meet professional and human-rights obligations.
From an ESG perspective, observers note reputational and operational risks for public institutions and private employers. Sustainability is a business case, they say: discriminatory public discourse can prompt legal challenges, investor scrutiny and workforce attrition. Leading companies have understood that inclusive policies reduce risk and protect long-term value.
Practical steps proposed by civil society include clear non-discrimination clauses in administrative guidance, independent monitoring of enforcement actions and public reporting on human-rights impacts. Human rights groups said monitoring mechanisms should reference established frameworks to ensure comparability and accountability.
Human rights organisations pledged continued documentation of incidents and engagement with legal bodies. They said they will work with domestic and international partners to challenge measures that, in their view, contravene constitutional and human-rights standards.
The deputy minister’s remarks come amid a wave of state action and social hostility toward LGBTQIA+ communities in Malaysia. Throughout 2026, law enforcement reportedly conducted multiple raids on events and venues associated with gay communities, with hundreds detained. In January, a hotel was closed after advertising as gay friendly. A government MP publicly suggested that factors such as “work-related stress” could influence involvement in an “LGBT lifestyle,” a comment that drew criticism for conflating identity with behaviour to be explained away or corrected.
State measures and surveillance
Authorities have increased surveillance of venues, online spaces and community networks. Rights groups say raids targeted private gatherings as well as commercial premises. Witnesses and advocates report arrests, temporary detentions and administrative closures following media exposure or complaints.
Human-rights organisations describe the pattern as coordinated enforcement combined with social pressure. They say the shift in official rhetoric from identity-based terminology to terms implying moral deviation has widened the scope for policing and informal sanctions. Those groups have indicated they will work with domestic and international partners to challenge measures that, in their view, contravene constitutional and human-rights standards.
From an ESG perspective, human-rights violations and inflammatory public statements pose material risks. Companies operating in Malaysia may face reputational, legal and operational challenges if staff or clients are affected by enforcement or if business premises are targeted. Leading companies have understood that robust human-rights due diligence can reduce exposure and protect stakeholders.
Legal advocates and civil-society monitors say they will continue documentation and pursue legal remedies. International observers have called for transparent investigations and safeguards to ensure that policing complies with statutory limits and respects fundamental freedoms.
Building on calls for transparent investigations, advocates say authorities must clarify the legal basis for surveillance and set binding safeguards. Officials have cited online activity to justify monitoring and intervention. The argument that search and recommendation systems might elevate LGBT content has been presented as an algorithmic concern that warrants policy action. That claim intersects with broader debates over digital governance, state censorship and the limits of administrative power.
Civil society groups warn that monitoring private gatherings, encrypted channels or community platforms risks violating privacy and could enable discriminatory targeting of vulnerable people. Independent lawyers and rights monitors have urged that any measures be proportionate, time‑bound and subject to judicial or parliamentary oversight. They stress the need for transparent reporting on the scope, methods and outcomes of surveillance activities.
From an ESG perspective, protecting digital privacy is also risk management for organisations operating in affected jurisdictions. Companies face operational and reputational risks if they are compelled to hand over user data without clear legal safeguards. Leading companies have understood that robust data‑protection standards reduce legal exposure and protect stakeholders.
What advocates recommend and the stakes ahead
Advocacy groups propose a set of immediate steps. First, publish detailed legal justifications for any monitoring and disclose the agencies involved. Second, require independent review of surveillance tools and algorithms to assess bias and accuracy. Third, provide remedies and safeguards for those whose communications are collected, including access to legal counsel and redress mechanisms.
Experts note that algorithmic explanations must be meaningful, not technical glosses that obscure decision‑making. Transparency should include information on keyword lists, filtering criteria and the role of private contractors. Civil society also calls for impact assessments for any policy that targets online content linked to sexual orientation or gender identity.
The stakes extend beyond immediate enforcement. Legal precedents on digital surveillance and content regulation will shape future civic space and online expression. Observers caution that measures framed as protecting public order can become instruments for suppressing dissent and marginalising minorities.
Looking forward
Human rights organisations urge the Malaysian government to abandon stigmatizing language and align policy with recognised health and human rights standards.
They call on officials to refrain from endorsing conversion practices, which several medical associations have advised against, and to prioritise protection from discrimination and violence.
Advocates also demand transparency about state surveillance and the legal bases for monitoring online activity.
They propose binding legislative and administrative safeguards to protect privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association.
From an ESG perspective, protecting civil liberties is material to social risk profiles and investor confidence.
Sustainability is a business case; companies operating in Malaysia face reputational and regulatory risks if rights concerns remain unaddressed.
Practical measures recommended include clear oversight mechanisms for surveillance, independent complaint channels, prohibitions on forced or coercive medical practices, and training for officials to reduce discriminatory rhetoric.
Observers say measures framed as public-order tools must include legal safeguards to avoid becoming instruments of suppression or tools that marginalise vulnerable groups.
The terminology debate over sexual minorities is shaping institutional responses and public attitudes. Labels framed as public-order tools must include legal safeguards to avoid becoming instruments of suppression or tools that marginalise vulnerable groups. From an ESG perspective, language that entrenches stigma carries measurable social and governance risks for public institutions and private actors.
Critics urge the government to heed international medical consensus and to respect constitutional guarantees. They warn that pejorative framings such as deviant culture can catalyse discrimination in policing, service access and administrative practices. Parliamentary exchanges on February 26 have intensified scrutiny of the government’s strategy toward sexual minorities and underscored the human impact of both words and policies.
Sustainability is a business case for social inclusion as well as environmental stewardship. Leading companies have understood that clear anti-discrimination safeguards reduce legal, reputational and operational risks. From a practical standpoint, policymakers should align public messaging with recognised health standards, embed procedural safeguards in enforcement, and monitor outcomes through independent reporting.
Practical steps include adopting medical and human-rights frameworks in official guidance, training frontline officials on non-discrimination, and creating transparent complaint mechanisms. Examples from international practice show that these measures lower conflict with religious and public-order concerns while protecting vulnerable groups. A focused roadmap that balances public policy, religious perspectives and rights-based protections will determine whether rhetoric escalates state action or opens space for legal safeguards and social inclusion.