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

RATHER than expanding public access to government-held information, civil society groups warn that Malaysia’s proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill 2026 could leave Malaysians facing tighter restrictions, broader secrecy provisions and weaker safeguards when seeking information from public authorities.

A global assessment by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) gave the Bill 47 out of 150 points, or 29 per cent, placing Malaysia 137th out of 142 countries with right-to-information or freedom-of-information laws.

The assessment was cited by the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center), Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), ARTICLE 19 and other organisations in calling for the Bill to undergo a comprehensive review.

Here are six concerns highlighted by the groups if the Bill is passed and enforced in its current form.

1. Your right to know could remain restricted

At the heart of any FOI law is a simple principle: can ordinary people access information held by their government? The Bill scored only 17 per cent for the right of access.

According to the organisations, the Bill does not establish a meaningful public right to 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, representing about 25 per cent of substantive federal laws currently in force.

The concern is that a substantial amount of government information could remain beyond meaningful public scrutiny.

For a generation that increasingly expects transparency and accountability from public institutions, critics argue the Bill could entrench rather than dismantle Malaysia’s long-standing culture of secrecy.

If access remains restricted, the next question becomes how easy it will be for people to request information in the first place.

2. Asking questions could become harder

The Bill scored only 13 per cent for requesting procedures, making it the weakest-performing category in the assessment.

The organisations say access would be restricted to citizens aged 18 and above, with applicants required to provide national identification details and prescribed reasons for seeking information.

They also raised concerns that the Bill could potentially criminalise the subsequent use of information obtained lawfully.

Critics argue these restrictions may create a chilling effect, discouraging people from submitting requests altogether.

The concern, they say, is not merely whether information can be obtained, but whether citizens feel confident enough to ask for it.

3. Information in the public interest could still be hidden

The Bill scored just 17 per cent for exceptions and refusals.

The organisations describe the proposed exemptions as excessively broad and lacking key safeguards, including:

• A comprehensive harm test
• A public-interest override
• Meaningful redaction or severance provisions

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

Critics maintain that the Bill does not clearly establish when information should be released because the public interest outweighs the need for secrecy.

4. Your constitutional rights could be questioned

One of the most significant concerns raised involves a provision stating that nothing in the Act shall be construed as fundamental liberties under Part II of the Federal Constitution.

The organisations described this provision as "deeply alarming".

They argue that instead of strengthening the legal recognition of access to information alongside freedom of speech and expression, the Bill could prevent the right to information from being recognised as a fundamental liberty.

They also contend that the provision raises broader concerns relating to judicial independence and the separation of powers.

The CLD recommended that access to information held by public authorities be recognised as a fundamental right and called for Clauses 6(2) and 22 to be removed.

For critics, the issue is whether access to information — often viewed as essential to democratic accountability — should enjoy constitutional protection.

5. Who watches the FOI watchdog?

Even where information requests are rejected, effective FOI systems typically provide an independent avenue for appeal.

However, the organisations argue that the Bill does not provide sufficiently robust independent oversight.

The Bill provides for external review by an Ombudsman established under the Ombudsman Act.

The concern, they note, is that the Ombudsman institution does not currently exist.

They also point to the absence of clear timelines or details on when such an office will be established.

The CLD instead recommends the creation of a specialised Information Commission to oversee implementation and hear appeals.

Critics say the absence of an established independent review mechanism could leave applicants with limited options when challenging refusals.

6. Malaysia could get an FOI law without real openness

The organisations’ overarching concern is the gap between the promise of freedom of information and what the Bill may deliver in practice.

The CLD assessment gave the Bill:

• 17 per cent – Right of access
• 13 per cent – Requesting procedures
• 17 per cent – Exceptions and refusals
• 19 per cent – Promotional measures

Overall score: 29 per cent

The organisations argue that, in its current form, the Bill would do little to address Malaysia’s entrenched culture of secrecy.

Instead, they warn it could create the appearance of reform while leaving many existing barriers to information intact.

For younger Malaysians in particular, the concern is that a law intended to expand transparency may still leave information difficult to obtain, exemptions broad and official secrecy deeply embedded within the system.

The groups stressed that the Bill can still be improved and have urged the Parliamentary Special Select Committee to conduct a comprehensive review that takes into account criticisms and recommendations from stakeholders.

They are calling for the legislation to be aligned with international standards and best practices on access to information.

For critics of the Bill, the debate is no longer whether Malaysia should have a Freedom of Information law, but whether the proposed legislation will deliver genuine access to information or merely formalise existing restrictions.

This explainer is based on the joint statement issued by C4 Center, CIJ, ARTICLE 19 and endorsing organisations on Aug 17, 2026. The potential impacts described above reflect concerns and warnings contained in the statement and are not presented as established outcomes.