Does the FOI Bill 2026 truly promote transparency or preserve secrecy?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Freedom of Information Bill 2026 Faces Scrutiny for Preserving Secrecy Despite Being Tabled

The recently tabled Freedom of Information Bill 2026 (FOI Bill) is facing significant criticism for potentially preserving existing secrecy rather than genuinely promoting transparency. While this legislation represents a long-awaited milestone for Malaysians advocating for a federal law granting citizens the right to access government information, several structural weaknesses and broad exemptions have raised concerns among legal experts and civil society advocates.
Right to Information Subordinated to Existing Laws and Conditional Access

A primary concern identified by advocate and solicitor Sathish Ramachandran is that the FOI Bill makes the right to information subordinate to other written laws. This provision, critics argue, effectively preserves existing barriers to disclosure rather than dismantling them, undermining the core principle of open government. Furthermore, access to information is framed as a conditional entitlement rather than an inherent democratic right, which contradicts the spirit of Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution as interpreted by the Federal Court in Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia (2005), which includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information.
Broad Exemptions and Weak Appeals Mechanism

Section 12 of the FOI Bill includes a sweeping list of exemptions, described by Sathish Ramachandran as broad enough "to swallow the Act’s own purpose." The extent and specific nature of these exemptions could significantly limit the information available to the public, thereby perpetuating a culture of secrecy. The proposed appeals mechanism, which relies on a future Ombudsman whose powers and independence are yet to be established, also presents an uncertainty regarding its effectiveness. This contrasts with the existing Freedom of Information Enactments in Penang and Selangor, which already provide for appeals to functioning Appeals Boards.
Constitutional Foundation Questioned and Restrictions on Information Use

Further weakening the Bill’s foundation is Section 22, which explicitly states that nothing in the Act creates a basic liberty in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Former Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) chief executive Pushpan Murugiah criticizes this clause for severing the connection between access to information and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression under Article 10, reducing the right to a statutory entitlement. Compounding these issues, Clause 18 criminalizes the use of lawfully disclosed information in a manner inconsistent with the stated purpose of the original application, carrying penalties of up to RM100,000 or five years imprisonment, thus creating new legal risks for citizens seeking to expose matters of public interest. Clause 6 also requires applicants to demonstrate a "proper and tangible interest" and show prejudice, a requirement that deviates from the principle of allowing any citizen to request information without justification.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does the FOI Bill 2026 truly promote transparency or preserve secrecy?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends