Malaysia's Freedom of Information Bill ranks near bottom globally, civil society groups urge review

SHAH ALAM – Malaysia's proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill 2026 has been ranked 137th out of 142 countries with right-to-information or freedom-of-information laws, with a global assessment describing it as an "extremely weak legislative effort" and prompting renewed calls for a comprehensive review.

The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) awarded the Bill just 47 out of 150 points, or 29 per cent, in its Right to Information (RTI) Rating assessment published on Aug 12.

Citing the assessment, the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center), Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), ARTICLE 19 and other endorsing organisations urged the Parliamentary Special Select Committee to comprehensively review the Bill.

The groups said the assessment reinforced concerns they had previously raised about the legislation, which was tabled for its first reading in Parliament on July 13. They noted that the CLD described the Bill as an "extremely weak legislative effort" and found that Malaysia was tied with the Philippines for the weakest-performing access-to-information framework in Southeast Asia.

Related story: A generation lost? 6 ways Malaysia’s FOI Bill could affect your right to know things

The assessment measured the Bill against seven indicators considered essential to an effective right-to-information regime.

Malaysia scored 17 per cent for the right of access, 40 per cent for scope, 13 per cent for requesting procedures, 17 per cent for exceptions and refusals, 61 per cent for appeals, 50 per cent for sanctions and protections, and 19 per cent for promotional measures.

According to the organisations, the Bill fails to establish a meaningful right for the public to access government-held information and instead preserves the supremacy of secrecy laws, including the Official Secrets Act 1972.

They pointed to approximately 165 federal laws containing secrecy provisions, which they said represented about 25 per cent of substantive federal laws currently in force, potentially leaving a substantial body of government information beyond meaningful public scrutiny.

The groups also criticised what they described as excessively broad exemptions in the Bill, arguing that they lacked safeguards such as a comprehensive harm test, a public-interest override and meaningful severance or redaction provisions.

They warned this could allow information relating to corruption, abuse of power, environmental harm and human rights violations to remain undisclosed even where disclosure would be in the public interest.

The statement also raised concerns over restrictions on who could request information, including limiting access to citizens aged 18 and above, requiring the use of national identification cards, prescribing purposes for requests and potentially criminalising the subsequent use of information obtained lawfully.

The organisations said such requirements could create a chilling effect, discouraging people from seeking government-held information.

They further criticised a provision stating that nothing in the Act would be construed as fundamental liberties under Part II of the Federal Constitution.

Describing the provision as "deeply alarming", the groups said it raised concerns over judicial independence and the separation of powers, while potentially preventing access to information from being recognised as a fundamental right.

Another major concern was the absence of effective independent oversight.

Under the Bill, external review would be conducted by an Ombudsman established under the Ombudsman Act. However, the organisations noted that the Ombudsman does not currently exist and that there was no clarity on when or how the office would be established.

They instead called for the creation of a specialised Information Commission to oversee implementation of the FOI framework and hear appeals.

The groups argued that Malaysia deserved a genuine right-to-information law rather than legislation that created an "illusion of openness or reform" while preserving a culture of secrecy.

They urged the Parliamentary Special Select Committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the Bill, taking into account recommendations from civil society groups and international best practices.

The organisations maintained that the legislation could still be redrafted to align with international standards on access to information.

The joint statement was issued by C4 Center, CIJ and ARTICLE 19, and endorsed by 38 organisations and 25 individuals.