Article 19, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) welcome the communication and the request for clarification by the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the special rapporteur on the rights of people with disabilities, regarding Malaysia’s Freedom of Information Bill 2026 through a joint communication to the Malaysian government.
The joint communication is significant because it recognises the government’s decision to subject the bill to further parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny, while also identifying serious concerns about whether the object and purpose of the current bill adequately protect the right to seek, receive and impart information.
Special rapporteurs Leopoldo Maldonado Gutiérrez, Andrea Bolaños Vargas and Heba Hagrass reiterated the concerns raised by our organisations since the bill was tabled in July.
In their communication, the special rapporteurs highlighted eight principal concerns. We would like to highlight some of the key concerns they raised.
Not aligned with international standards: They noted that several provisions under the bill are not consistent with international human rights law and standards, especially Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 34 on freedoms of opinion and expression.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Right to information is part of freedom of expression: They highlighted significant concerns regarding clause 6(2) and clause 22 and encouraged these clauses to be amended to recognise that the right to information is an integral part of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to establish a clear and enforceable presumption in favour of disclosure.
They also noted that these two clauses “may discourage the courts from adopting a human rights-based interpretation”.
No adequate rights and safeguards: They also raised concerns that the bill does not adequately safeguard the right to seek, receive and impart information held by public bodies.
They also said the scope and framework of the bill are inadequate and asked whether, in its current form, the bill will be sufficient to recognise and protect a substantive and enforceable right of access to information, as well as the rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
No clear objectives: They also sought clarification on the legislation’s objectives, including its role in promoting transparency, accountability and public participation in governance, and in supporting a human rights-based interpretation of its provisions.
Procedural mechanism rather than rights: They further added that some provisions appear to “characterise access to information primarily as a procedural mechanism rather than as a right, while other aspects of the framework may limit who can request information, impose conditions on requests, establish broad restrictions on disclosure, affect the effectiveness of review and oversight mechanisms, and impose liability in relation to certain uses and dissemination of information”.
Coverage of the bill: The special rapporteurs raised concerns over clauses 2(1) and 3 of the bill that do not extend “to all parliamentary and judicial functions, constitutional and independent bodies, State governments, most local authorities, government-linked or government-controlled entities, oversight institutions, or private bodies that perform public functions or receive substantial public funding”.
They said this approach is narrower than the international standards, which favour broader access to all government levels and branches, including organisations that perform public functions or handle significant public funds.
Broad exemptions: They raised concerns about the exemptions regime under clause 12 of the bill, which omits the harm test assessment and public interest override test.
They fear that without the harm test and public interest override, it may allow public bodies to withhold information “where disclosure would not result in demonstrable harm and may outweigh competing public interests in transparency and accountability”.
Preservation of secrecy laws: They raised concerns about preserving other secrecy laws, such as the Official Secrets Act 1972, and proposed establishing appropriate safeguards to balance the interaction between the bill and other secrecy provisions.
Lack of an independent oversight body: They also requested that the government consider establishing an independent oversight body through primary legislation and guaranteeing its independence, comprehensive investigative powers, effective remedies and adequate resources.
Criminalisation: They raised serious concerns over clauses 17(1)(b), 17(2) and 18(1)(a) on the criminalisation of the disclosure of the information and the use of information for a purpose other than relating to an access request and the use of the information other than originally specified.
They said criminalisation is difficult to justify as necessary and proportionate, and it risks undermining the right to freedom of expression.
At the conclusion of the communication, the special rapporteurs requested the Malaysian government to clarify the issues raised.
Some of their specific requests include:
- An explanation of the modalities for the parliamentary special select committee review, including details about submissions, hearings and draft amendments
- Information on whether the primary legislation will establish a substantive right of access to information
- An anticipated timeline for the adoption of the bill
The special rapporteurs’ in-depth analysis and observations once again strengthen our concerns, criticism and call for the bill to align with international standards in its entirety.
Malaysia has an opportunity to demonstrate that its institutional reform agenda can meet meaningful international standards.
A strong freedom-of-information law would strengthen public accountability, democratic participation and confidence in government, while enhancing Malaysia’s credibility as a country committed to transparent and accountable governance.
Article 19, the CIJ and C4 Center strongly urge the government and select committee to seriously consider the UN special rapporteurs’ concerns and comprehensively review the bill.
Our organisations are committed to contributing to this process in a constructive, meaningful and effective manner. Given our continued coordinated efforts and expertise in the right to information, we want to be at the forefront of raising the standard of our nation’s democracy.
We hope the considerations set out above will inform the government’s approach and reinforce the need to priorities the timely adoption of a robust freedom of information law, rather than further delays to the reform process. – Article 19 / CIJ / C4 Center
Issued by:
- Nalini Elumalai (Article 19)
- Wathshlah Naidu (CIJ)
- Prishanth Linggaraj (C4 Center)
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
