Introduction
Our firm successfully represented a resident of Subang Jaya in an appeal to the State Information Board (Badan Maklumat Negeri), resulting in a binding order compelling Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya (MBSJ) to disclose four key documents relating to a proposed flyover project. This article will guide you through how the Freedom of Information (State of Selangor) Enactment 2011 (“the Enactment“) can be used as an effective instrument of civic accountability.
Background Facts
At the centre of this Appeal is our client, Mr Woo Yuen Seng, is a 65-year-old resident of Subang Jaya, who resides directly adjacent to the proposed Jalan Lagoon Selatan–Subang Kelana Link/Persiaran Kewajipan flyover project (“the Project”). Since the project was first announced in May 2023, residents of SS14 raised consistent and documented concerns about traffic safety, inadequate road clearance, noise pollution, and governance of the Project.
These concerns that were repeatedly deflected by MBSJ, the developer (Sunway), and local elected representatives across three town halls spanning more than two and a half years.
After exhausting all informal avenues, including written memos to the Datuk Bandar, engagement with their ADUN and Member of Parliament, and even a peaceful public protest in November 2025, our client turned to the law.
The Enactment: A Brief Overview
The Freedom of Information (State of Selangor) Enactment 2011 is a piece of state legislation that establishes a right of access to information held by State Government departments, local authorities, and entities wholly owned or controlled by the State Government. Its stated purpose is to enhance disclosure of information for the public interest, provide individuals a reasonable right of access to information, and promote transparency and accountability.
The Enactment is notable for several reasons:
-
- Presumption of disclosure: Under section 5, every department shall provide access to information within its control unless an exemption expressly applies.
- Time-bound response: Under section 7, a department must respond in writing within 30 days of acknowledging the application. For matters relating to life or liberty, the period is seven days.
-
- Structured exemptions: Section 14 sets out the grounds on which access may be refused. Namely, if the information and/or document requested is classified national security information (section 14(a)), information obtained from a third party in confidence that contains trade secrets or whose disclosure would seriously prejudice commercial or financial interests (section 14(b)(ii)), and information whose disclosure would seriously prejudice effective policy formulation (section 14(c)).
-
- The public interest override: Critically, section 15(1)(a) provides that notwithstanding those exemptions, a department shall grant access to otherwise exempted information where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. This is not a discretionary provision as it mandates access.
-
- Partial disclosure: Section 16 provides that where a document contains both exempt and non-exempt information, access shall nevertheless be given to the non-exempt portions, with the applicant informed of what has been deleted.
- Appeals to the State Information Board. Under section 9, a dissatisfied applicant may appeal to Badan Maklumat Negeri within 21 days of receiving a refusal. The Board has broad powers under section 17(11) whereby it may hear both parties, summon witnesses, compel production of documents, and confirm, vary, or reverse the Information Officer’s decision. Critically, its orders are final and binding. A decision by the Baord cannot be challenged in court by the department, though an applicant who remains dissatisfied may appeal to court within 21 days under section 17(14).
The Application and Refusal
On 20 November 2025, our client submitted a formal application pursuant to section 6 of the Enactment to the Information Officer at MBSJ’s Department of Engineering, requesting four categories of documents:
1. The Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) report prepared by Sunway’s consultant;
2. The Road Safety Audit (“RSA”) report prepared by Sunway’s consultant;
3. The Flyover Plan Drawings submitted to MBSJ; and
4. The Development Order Approval (“Kebenaran Merancang” or “KM”).
On 10 December 2025, MBSJ’s Information Officer rejected our client’s application in its entirety, citing section 14(b)(ii): that the documents were said to have been obtained in confidence from a third party and to contain trade secrets, or that their disclosure would or would likely seriously prejudice the commercial or financial interests of the third party, Sunway.
The Appeal to the State Information Board
On 26 December 2025, our client filed a Notice of Appeal to the State Information Board on, supported by written submission. The appeal raised five principal grounds.
(1) Erroneous application of section 14(b)(ii)
MBSJ’s reliance on the trade secrets and commercial interests exemption was plainly misconceived. The four documents requested are by their nature technical and regulatory documents. They contain engineering data, traffic projections, road geometry specifications, and administrative decisions by a public authority.
They are not financial accounts, proprietary formulae, or commercially sensitive pricing information. Our client had been permitted by MBSJ itself to view (though not copy) the TIA on 17 December 2025 and the remaining three documents on 29 December 2025, and confirmed upon inspection that none contained financial data or trade secrets.
The Enactment also sets a high threshold to be satisfied for in section 14(b)(ii). Disclosure must seriously prejudicecommercial or financial interests. MBSJ’s blanket refusal was not supported by any particularised assessment of which specific portions of which specific documents would meet this test.
(2) Overriding public interest under section 15(1)(a)
Even if any portion of the documents were technically exempted, the public interest in disclosure was overwhelming. The flyover is a piece of public infrastructure built on government-controlled land, adjacent to a dense residential area, affecting the daily lives and safety of thousands of residents.
The residents led by Mr Woo had a legitimate interest in verifying whether the TIA and RSA, prepared by the developer’s own consultants, adequately assessed traffic and safety impacts on their streets. The Datuk Bandar had himself initially agreed to commission an independent TIA, which acknowledged the legitimacy of the transparency concern. The public interest in disclosure plainly outweighed any marginal commercial sensitivity.
(3) Failure to provide partial disclosure under section 16
Even taking MBSJ’s case at its highest, the appropriate response would have been to redact any genuinely sensitive portions and disclose the remainder, as section 16 expressly requires. A blanket refusal of entire technical reports, without identifying what specific information was said to be commercially sensitive was disproportionate and contrary to the Enactment’s objective of maximum disclosure.
(4) Breach of the spirit of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976
Sections 12A and 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 require local planning authorities to give affected persons an opportunity to make representations or objections before a development order is granted. Our client had been repeatedly assured by MBSJ and local representatives that resident concerns would be addressed before the KM was approved. The KM was, in fact, approved on 19 August 2025, without residents being informed. Withholding the KM record compounded this procedural irregularity.
(5) Non-independence of the reports and public distrust
The TIA and RSA were both compiled by Sunway’s own consultants. In the absence of any independent verification by MBSJ or a public authority, the public could not assess whether the reports were objective. This, coupled with conflicting statements from multiple MBSJ officials about the approval date, created a reasonable basis for public concern that could only be addressed through full disclosure.
The Hearing and the Board’s Decision
The State Information Board convened the hearing on 7 May 2026. Our firm’s Nevyn Vinosh Venudran represented the client at the hearing.
On 12 June 2026, the Board issued its decision in our client’s favour. The Board made the following key findings:
-
- The documents obtained from the third party (Sunway) were not obtained in confidence but through official channels — a distinction that goes to the root of the section 14(b)(ii) exemption.
- MBSJ failed to demonstrate, with any specificity, how disclosure of the documents would seriously prejudice Sunway’s commercial or financial interests.
- The documents requested do not contain trade secrets.
- MBSJ’s own conduct, by permitting our client to view the documents (without copying), was itself inconsistent with a claim that the documents were too sensitive to disclose.
- The Board noted the operation of section 16 (partial disclosure) and section 15(1)(a) (public interest override) as independent bases on which access should have been granted.
The Board ordered MBSJ to disclose the requested documents within 14 days of the order.
Practical Lessons for Future Applicants
This case illustrates a number of practical points worth noting for anyone navigating the Selangor FOI regime.
(1) Inspect before you Appeal
Our client’s two inspection visits, permitted by MBSJ pending the appeal, proved decisive. First-hand knowledge that the documents contained no financial data or trade secrets turned a speculative argument into a factual one. Where a local authority offers inspection as a substitute for disclosure, accept it, document what you see (within the limits permitted), and use it.
(2) Engage the Exemption on its own terms
Section 14(b)(ii) is not a blanket shield for any document touching a private party. You must press the local authority to identify specifically which information is said to be a trade secret and specifically how disclosure would seriously prejudice commercial interests. Vague assertions of confidentiality should be challenged.
(3) Rely on sections 15 & 16 in the alternative
Even where an exemption applies in principle, the public interest override in section 15(1)(a) and the partial disclosure obligation in section 16 provide powerful fall-back arguments. A complete refusal, without any attempt at redaction, is almost always vulnerable to a section 16 argument.
(4) Document the Procedural History
One of the strengths of our appeal was the detailed chronological record of MBSJ’s shifting positions, different approval dates given by different officials, assurances made at town halls, the reversal on an independent TIA. This broader narrative of governance failure reinforced the public interest case under section 15.
(5) The Board’s order is Enforceable and Final against the authority
Under section 17(14), the Board’s decision is final, cannot be questioned in court, and binds all parties. While an applicant who remains dissatisfied may appeal to court, the local authority has no such recourse.
Conclusion
The Selangor Freedom of Information Enactment 2011 remains, more than a decade after its enactment, a powerful but underutilised instrument of civic accountability. It is one of very few transparency statutes at the state level and is notable for the robustness of its appeal mechanism, an independent Board, quasi-judicial powers, and binding orders.
This case demonstrates that the Enactment is not merely aspirational. When properly invoked and the appeal process diligently pursued, it can compel disclosure of documents that public authorities have resisted sharing for years. For residents, civil society organisations, and lawyers acting in the public interest, the Enactment provides a structured and cost-effective path to accountability.
It must be stated that accountability against local authorities can only be enforced because of dedicated and determined members of our community such as our client, Mr Woo Yuen Seng
Our firm is available to advise on Freedom of Information applications and appeals in Selangor. Please contact us for further information.
Our Mr Lim Wei Jiet & Nevyn Vinosh Venudran acted for Mr Woo Yuen Seng in the above proceedings
