The Malaysian Bar takes note of the tabling of the long-overdue Freedom of Information Bill 2026 (“FOI Bill”) in Parliament on 13 July 2026. However, we regret to note that the FOI Bill falls far short of complying with international standards.1 The FOI Bill appears overly focused on procedures to obtain information held by public authorities. Such procedures could be easily implemented by public authorities using internal guidelines and standard operating procedures, without the need for an FOI Bill.
Shockingly, the proposed Clause 22 of the FOI Bill purports to provide as follows:
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed as fundamental liberties under Part II of the Federal Constitution.”
Clause 22 is regressive and purports to dial back advances in freedom of information law and rights in Malaysia. Even if enacted, it would be of doubtful legality and, in any case, undermines the object, purpose and legitimacy of the FOI Bill and is incompatible with modern developments in freedom of information rights. Clause 22 must be deleted or materially altered to acknowledge freedom of information as a constitutional right.
In this regard, the referral of the FOI Bill to a Parliamentary Special Select Committee (“PSSC”) for further consideration presents an opportunity to ensure that the said Bill is significantly enhanced to advance transparency, accountability and the public’s right to know.
An FOI Bill cannot be taken and viewed in isolation from the broader environment within which journalists operate. The Malaysian Bar notes with concern the remarks by Dato’ Kuik Cheng Kang, Group Editor-in-Chief of Media Chinese International Limited, that there are “seven swords” hanging over the heads of newspaper editors and journalists in Malaysia,2 which are:
(1) Official Secrets Act 1972 (the Malaysian Bar passed a resolution calling for the immediate repeal of sections 2A, 2B and 16A)3;
(2) Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (the Bar has issued press releases to call for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984)4;
(3) Sedition Act 1948 (the Malaysian Bar has called for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948 through press releases5 and Bar resolutions6);
(4) Defamation Act 1957;
(5) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (the Bar passed a resolution to call for the repeal of sections 233, 252, 263 and similar vague provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and issued press releases to call on the Government of Malaysia to repeal sections 233 and 263)7;
(6) Various offences under the Penal Code (provisions such as section 505(b), which criminalises publication of reports that may cause public fear or alarm, should not be used to fetter freedom of the press); and
(7) Cybercrimes Bill 2026, recently passed by the Dewan Negara (Senate) and Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives).
As articulated by Dato’ Kuik, the cumulative effect of the foregoing is that journalists must operate within the confines of these restrictive laws to avoid investigations, prosecutions and other repercussions.
The Malaysian Bar calls upon the PSSC to urgently address the following:
(1) As the FOI Bill fails to recognise the constitutional right to information as held by the Federal Court in the case of Sivarasa Rasiah,8 Clause 22 of the FOI Bill must expressly acknowledge this constitutional right9;
(2) Clause 6 of the FOI Bill should be amended to remove all unnecessary restrictions on who may request information. Under the FOI Bill, a Malaysian who does not fall within the purposes specified in subclause 6(1)(a) to (c) can only request information in reliance upon subclause 6(1)(d) which requires a requestor to demonstrate “proper and tangible interest” and prove they have been “prejudiced” by a public authority, and yet the FOI Bill does not define these terms. These are vague and unnecessary obstacles that are incompatible with principles of freedom of information;
(3) The FOI Bill must include a “harms test” requiring public officers to weigh whether a disclosure of information will cause more harm than the public interest benefits from the release of information, before refusing a request, and any and all refusals must be explained with written reasons;
(4) Clause 12 of the FOI Bill is overly lengthy and exclusionary and must be narrowed to comply strictly with the permissible restrictions under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. Taken as a whole, the broad exemptions under the FOI Bill in its present form, the absence of a mandatory duty of proactive disclosure in Clause 21 and the continued protection afforded to official secrets significantly curtail public access to information, thereby leaving very little information readily accessible to the public;
(5) Offences for misuse of information, supply of false information and obstructing disclosure in Clause 18(1)(c) of the Bill, which provides a fine not exceeding RM100,000, an imprisonment term of up to five years or both, should be removed. These sanctions are excessively punitive, and the possibility of facing such heavy sanctions may deter requests and are wholly incompatible with the object and purpose that an FOI Bill should strive for, that is, there should be more openness and transparency under the FOI Bill, not more restrictive laws; and
(6) Clauses 13 to 17 give oversight to “the Ombudsman” — a body that does not even exist yet. The enabling Bill for the Ombudsman has not been tabled10 — a fact that the FOI Bill’s own explanatory statement11 concedes. The FOI Bill must establish an independent oversight body with binding decision-making power, authority to inspect records and compel disclosure, and protection from interference in its appointment and funding.12
Passing the FOI Bill in its current form would be a disservice to the country. Malaysia deserves an effective and robust Freedom of Information Act that recognises freedom of information as a constitutional right, protects whistleblowers, enables public participation in governance and strengthens investigative journalism. We urge the PSSC to implement the foregoing objects and to give Malaysia a robust and meaningful Freedom of Information Act and overhaul and rectify the regressive FOI Bill in its present form.
Anand Raj
President
Malaysian Bar
21 July 2026
1 “Press Release | Malaysian Freedom of Information Act is Long Overdue”, Malaysian Bar website, 3 July 2026.
2 “郭总时间｜总编辑头上增添第七把刀” (Opinion Piece: A Seventh Sword is Added over the Head of Editors-in-Chief), China Press, 11 July 2026.
3 “Resolution for the Immediate Abolition / Repeal of Draconian Legislative Provisions”, Resolution Adopted at the 73rd Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar, 16 March 2019.
4 “Press Release | Repeal the Printing Presses and Publications Act; Independent Regulation to Preserve Independence of Media”, Malaysian Bar website, 28 December 2013; and “Press Release | The Malaysian Bar Reiterates Its Call to Repeal the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984”, Malaysian Bar website, 30 August 2023.
5 “Joint Press Release | Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 are Draconian, Militate against the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary”, Malaysian Bar website, 17 April 2015.
6 These include the “Resolution of Growing Concern over Delay of Government to Repeal Draconian Laws and Bring about Needed Reforms to Ensure Justice in Malaysia”, Resolution Adopted at the 78th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar, 16 March 2024; and the “Resolution against the Sedition Act, other laws and actions taken which stifle speech and expression, and matters in connection therewith”, Resolution Adopted at the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) of the Malaysian Bar, 19 September 2014. The Malaysian Bar also organised a peaceful assembly following the EGM — “Walk for Peace and Freedom 2014” — calling for the abolition of the Sedition Act, on 16 October 2014. Around 1,000 to 2,000 lawyers participated.
7 “Press Release | Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Creates a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Should be Repealed”, Malaysian Bar website, 21 December 2015.
8 Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2010] 2 MLJ 333.
9 Explanatory Statement 29 in the FOI Bill: Clause 22 seeks to clarify the construction of the proposed Act by expressly providing that nothing within the proposed Act shall be construed or interpreted as creating or constituting fundamental liberties under Part II of the Federal Constitution.
10 Ombudsman Bill.
11 Explanatory Statement 31 of the FOI Bill: At the time this proposed Act is made, the Bill regarding the Ombudsman has not yet been introduced or moved in Parliament. Therefore, all the provisions in relation to the Ombudsman in this proposed Act are deferred pending the bill regarding Ombudsman is tabled in Parliament.
12 Right to Information (“RTI”) Rating Methodology (Indicators 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43).