Court Rules on Influencer’s Viral ‘Charity’ Video

KUALA LUMPUR (Azat TV) – A Malaysian court has imposed a significant fine on social media influencer Tang Sie Luk, 23, for creating and uploading an offensive video that depicted teenagers giving a homeless man rice mixed with chicken bones. The ruling, handed down on January 31, 2026, marks a judicial consequence for online content deemed exploitative and designed to cause annoyance, bringing a legal resolution to a widely condemned incident that went viral last year.

Tang Sie Luk was ordered to pay RM40,000, equivalent to approximately $12,800, after pleading guilty to knowingly creating and uploading extremely offensive content with the intent to cause annoyance. The charge falls under Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. Judge Sazlina Safie of the Malaysian court also stipulated a four-month prison term if Tang failed to pay the fine, which he settled immediately following the verdict.

Legal Ramifications for Offensive Content

The court’s decision underscores Malaysia’s stance on accountability for digital content, especially when it targets vulnerable individuals. The case against Tang Sie Luk highlights the legal boundaries for social media engagement, moving beyond public outrage to concrete punitive measures. The immediate payment of the fine by Tang ensured he avoided incarceration, but the financial penalty and the public record of his conviction remain significant.

During the proceedings, Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission deputy public prosecutor Fadhi Ab Wahab urged the court for a deterrent sentence. He emphasized that Tang’s actions caused real harm to the victim, stating, “The victim has also said he felt insulted and angry by the accused’s actions. This was not an act of charity. It was a calculated act of exploitation, using human suffering to create social media content for entertainment and public attention.” This testimony was crucial in illustrating the severe impact of the influencer’s content.

The Viral Video Controversy

The offensive video, which was over a minute long, first appeared on the Chinese social media platform Douyin on August 3, 2025. It quickly spread to Instagram, where it gained viral status and drew widespread public condemnation across various platforms. The footage began with a voiceover proclaiming, “Today we are going to do a kind deed,” before showing three teenage boys eating fried chicken. They then decided it would be “a waste” to discard the bones, proceeding to pack them with rice and claiming the mixture was intended as a donation.

The video culminated with the boys handing these food scraps to a homeless man on Jalan Wong Ah Fook in Johor Bahru, all while recording the interaction for social media. This act, presented as a charitable gesture, was widely perceived as deeply disrespectful and exploitative, sparking outrage among viewers who saw it as a mockery of genuine goodwill and the plight of the less fortunate.

Victim’s Insult and Public Condemnation

The victim’s account, presented by the prosecution, confirmed the deeply insulting nature of the act. His feelings of anger and humiliation were central to the prosecution’s argument that the video was not merely distasteful but genuinely harmful. This incident fueled a broader discussion online about the ethics of content creation, particularly when it involves individuals in vulnerable situations. Many criticized the influencer for prioritizing viral fame over basic human dignity and respect.

During his mitigation, Tang Sie Luk represented himself, expressing remorse for his actions and offering an apology. He requested a minimum fine, acknowledging his role in uploading the video. Despite his plea, the court sided with the prosecution’s call for a strong deterrent, recognizing the severe ethical breach and the emotional distress inflicted upon the homeless man.

The court’s verdict against Tang Sie Luk serves as a significant precedent, signaling an increasing legal intolerance for content creators who exploit others for social media engagement, particularly when such actions cause documented emotional harm and violate public decency standards.