SHAH ALAM — The proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill is intended to give Malaysians greater access to government-held information.
But according to the Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ), the draft legislation risks doing the opposite — creating a formal process to request information while leaving the government firmly in control of what the public is allowed to know.
CIJ executive director Wathshlah G. Naidu argued that the Bill does not establish a substantive right to information.
Instead, it treats access as an administrative procedure, fundamentally undermining the principle behind freedom of information.
"The first thing that went wrong with it was the fact that it's not about the right to information. It's not about freedom of information but basically a procedural mechanism," she told Sinar Daily.
Under the proposed framework, information would not be presumed accessible. Existing secrecy laws, including the Official Secrets Act (OSA), would continue to prevail.
"It is almost like instead of open by default, it is closed by default and at the discretion of the government we might, and it's not even we shall but that we might give you access," she said.
In practical terms, Malaysians may be given the right to apply for information, but not necessarily the right to obtain it.
Wathshlah likened the process to being handed a key to a house only to discover multiple gates, checkpoints and locks still standing in the way.
Applicants would have to satisfy several conditions, including being Malaysian citizens aged 18 and above, providing identification details and stating a prescribed purpose for seeking the information.
Her concerns extend beyond access itself. She argues that a person could obtain information lawfully through the FOI process yet face restrictions on how that information may subsequently be used or disclosed.
That becomes particularly problematic if journalists, researchers, activists or ordinary citizens uncover evidence of corruption or wrongdoing while examining documents they had legitimately obtained.
"If you get the information legitimately, lawfully, you have access to the information, but if you are looking through the information and find elements of corruption, for example, and then you can't disclose it because it's not for the purpose that you requested," she said.
The consequence, she warned, could be a chilling effect that discourages people from asking difficult questions in the first place.
Wathshlah stressed that genuine freedom of information does not require governments to release every document without restriction. National security, defence, personal data and commercially sensitive information can all justify exemptions.
However, she argued that such exemptions should be subject to safeguards. Authorities should be required to demonstrate the harm that disclosure would cause, rather than relying on broad secrecy provisions. She also advocates a public interest override that would allow disclosure when the public benefit outweighs the potential harm.
Without those safeguards, she said, the Bill risks granting authorities broad discretion to withhold information while creating the appearance of transparency .
The implications extend far beyond journalists and civil society groups.
Residents may want to know why a new road is being built in their neighbourhood, who won the contract and how much public money is being spent. Parents may seek answers about a long-promised school project that remains unfinished.
Communities affected by major developments may want access to environmental and social impact assessments.
These are not requests for state secrets. They are questions about decisions that directly affect people's lives.
For Wathshlah, the issue is not whether Malaysia has an FOI law, but whether the law meaningfully enables public scrutiny of government decisions.
"The question is not whether Malaysia has a law or not. The test is how substantively good is this law and does it give us genuine access to information held by public authorities and bodies."
Her concern is that a weak law may allow governments to claim transparency reforms while retaining control over information.
"This works amazingly for the politicians who want to keep us quiet," she said, stating that the debate comes down to a simple but uncomfortable question.
“If citizens can request information but the government still decides what they may see, use and disclose, is that truly freedom of information — or merely freedom to submit a request?” she asked.