THE Freedom of Information Bill 2026 (FOI Bill) has been framed as a step forward for transparency – but legal and civil society groups say several provisions must be refined to ensure it lives up to that promise.
The Bar Council has called on the Parliamentary Special Select Committee (PSSC) reviewing the Bill to address key gaps, including the recognition of access to information as a constitutional right, stronger whistleblower protections and clearer mechanisms to support public accountability and journalism.
Malaysian Bar president Anand Raj says the proposed changes would help shape a more robust and meaningful Freedom of Information Act, while addressing concerns in the Bill's current form.
Among the most significant issues is Clause 22, which Anand says "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."
He adds that the effectiveness of any FOI law cannot be viewed in isolation, especially in journalism.
"An FOI Bill cannot be taken and viewed in isolation from the broader environment within which journalists operate," he says.
In this regard, he points to remarks by Media Chinese International Limited Group Editor-in-Chief Datuk Kuik Cheng Kang, who highlighted "seven swords hanging over the heads of newspaper editors and journalists in Malaysia":
- The Official Secrets Act 1972;
- The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984;
- The Sedition Act 1948;
- The Defamation Act 1957;
- The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998;
- Relevant provisions under the Penal Code; and
- The Cybercrimes Bill 2026.
Anand outlines six areas the PSSC should consider; Clause 22, he says, should clearly recognise access to information as a constitutional right, while Clause 6 – which requires applicants to show a "proper and tangible interest" or "prejudice" – may be overly restrictive.
He also proposes introducing a "harms test", where disclosure may only be denied if the harm outweighs the public interest.
Clause 12, he adds, is broad and could benefit from clearer limits aligned with the Constitution. The Bill should also encourage proactive disclosure, rather than rely solely on requests.
On Clause 18, which provides for fines of up to RM100,000 and jail terms of up to five years for misuse or obstruction, Anand says the penalties may be excessive.
"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."
He also suggests establishing an independent oversight body with enforcement powers, instead of assigning the role to an Ombudsman that has yet to be established under Clauses 13 to 17.
Civil society groups (CSOs) have similarly called for refinements.
The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), Article 19 and the Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) say the Bill risks being limited in scope if key issues are not addressed.
In a joint statement, they note that the Bill narrowly defines "information", restricts eligibility, and includes broad exemptions and penalties.
They emphasise that access to information should be recognised as a substantive right, grounded in the principle of maximum disclosure, and supported by a broader review of secrecy laws such as the Official Secrets Act 1972 and Penal Code Section 203A.
They also point to ambiguities in the Bill's definitions.
"Access to information should be guided by the principle of maximum disclosure, with nondisclosure permitted only in exceptionally justifiable circumstances and subject to appeal," the statement says.
Among their concerns are provisions limiting access to citizens aged 18 and above, requiring written requests with identification and asking applicants to justify their purpose.
"Clause 5(1) should be amended to state that any person shall have the right of access to information under the FOI Bill. Amend Clause 5(1)(a) to explicitly include the possibility of submitting a request either orally or in writing, even electronically, and remove the obligation for requesters to provide their ID, so long as they provide a name and an address or email sufficient for a reply."
The groups also note that while the Bill requires agencies to appoint information officers, their roles are not clearly defined.
"The mandate and function of the Information Office must be clarified to avoid ambiguity," the statement says.
On whistleblower protection, they say Clause 17 should be reconsidered and replaced with more comprehensive safeguards.
They also highlight the absence of clear provisions on record-keeping and annual reporting.
"It is important that public authorities keep records of their information disclosure activities and be required to report annually on these activities.
"Such reports are an important means of monitoring the performance of public bodies in the information field, and most access to information laws provide for their creation and maintenance."
Meanwhile, it was reported that the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said had assured that the FOI Bill will be scrutinised in a series of meetings by the PSSC scheduled this month.
She said the PSSC review will also take into account various views submitted by stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations and professional bodies.
The committee is expected to submit its recommendations and findings before the next parliamentary sitting in October.
