Bar wants ‘harm test’ before FOI requests are refused

 Its president Anand Raj says the Freedom of Information Bill should also require officials to provide written reasons for every refusal.

The Malaysian Bar said the Freedom of Information Bill focused too much on how requests should be made and not enough on protecting the public’s right to know.

PETALING JAYA:

Government officials should be required to show that releasing information will cause more harm than keeping it secret before rejecting a request under the Freedom of Information Bill 2026, says the Malaysian Bar.

In a statement, its president Anand Raj called for the bill to include a “harm test” and require officials to provide written reasons for every refusal.

The bill is meant to give the public a way to request information held by government departments and other public bodies.

It is now being examined by a parliamentary special select committee after criticism from civil society groups and others.

Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said had previously said the government had taken note of the concerns and wanted the bill to meet its reform aims and be up to international standards.

However, Anand said the proposed law focused too much on how requests should be made and not enough on protecting the public’s right to know.

He said the bill also listed too many categories of information that could remain secret. These exceptions should be narrowed, especially as official secrets would remain protected.

He also objected to a rule requiring some applicants to show that they had a “proper and tangible interest” in the information and had been affected by the actions of a public body.

Anand said the terms were vague and could make it harder for journalists, researchers, civil society groups and ordinary people to seek information on matters of public interest.

He also urged the committee to review penalties of up to RM100,000, five years’ jail or both for offences under the bill, saying these penalties could deter people from using the law.

Anand also questioned plans to give oversight of the law to the Ombudsman, given that the body has yet to be established.

He said the bill should recognise access to information as a constitutional right, instead of expressly stating that it was not a basic right under the Federal Constitution, and establish an independent body with the power to inspect records and order their release. - FMT