Does the FOI Bill 2026 truly grant citizens a right to know?

Question

Accepted Answer

The FOI Bill 2026 Falls Short of Establishing a Genuine Right to Know

The Freedom of Information Bill 2026 (FOI Bill) represents a significant step towards granting citizens access to government-held information, yet it falls short of truly establishing a fundamental "right to know." The legislation retains existing legal and administrative barriers that restrict public access and maintains a framework that prioritises secrecy over disclosure, rather than embodying the principle that government information belongs to the public unless a compelling reason exists to withhold it.
Structural Weaknesses Undermine Disclosure

The FOI Bill is criticised for several structural weaknesses that impede its intended purpose. Advocate and solicitor Sathish Ramachandran highlights that the bill makes the right to information subordinate to other laws, preserving pre-existing obstacles to disclosure. Furthermore, it frames access to information as a conditional entitlement rather than an inherent democratic right. A significant concern is the extensive list of exemptions, particularly under Section 12, which contains provisions from (a) to (q) that are deemed broad enough to undermine the core objective of the legislation.
Constitutional Foundation Questioned

A more fundamental constitutional issue is raised concerning Section 22 of the FOI Bill. This section explicitly states that the Act should not be interpreted as creating a basic liberty under the Federal Constitution. This provision is expected to be a primary point of legal challenge, as it severs the connection between the right to access information and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression under Article 10(1)(a), which the Federal Court in Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia (2005) interpreted to include the right to seek, receive, and impart information. Reducing this right to a statutory entitlement rather than a democratic one weakens its constitutional standing.
Restrictions on Information Use and Access

Beyond the process of obtaining information, the FOI Bill introduces new risks by regulating how lawfully disclosed information can be used. Clause 18 criminalises the use of disclosed information if it is inconsistent with the purpose stated in the original application, carrying penalties of up to RM100,000 fine, five years' imprisonment, or both. Additionally, Clause 6 imposes a requirement for applicants to demonstrate a "proper and tangible interest" and prove prejudice from public authority actions, which deviates from the robust standard found in mature democracies where citizens can request information without needing to justify their motives.
Appeals Mechanism and Judicial Oversight

Concerns also surround the proposed appeals mechanism within the FOI Bill. Independent review is to be conducted by an Ombudsman, an office to be established under separate legislation that has yet to be tabled. The effectiveness of this safeguard remains uncertain without clarity on the Ombudsman's powers, independence, and appointment process. In contrast, existing state-level Freedom of Information Enactments in Penang and Selangor feature functioning Appeals Boards that have issued decisions compelling disclosure. Crucially, Section 16 of the FOI Bill preserves the right to seek judicial review in the High Court, a safeguard that should not be diminished.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does the FOI Bill 2026 truly grant citizens a right to know?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends