Empowering Malaysians in Environmental Decision-Making

Introduction

Ladies and gentlemen, selamat pagi and thank you for being here. Imagine a small Malaysian community living beside a lush forest and a clean river. One day, news arrives that a large industrial project – perhaps a factory or a mining site – will be built nearby. The locals are shocked; nobody asked for their input, yet they will bear the consequences. This scenario is far too common. From toxic waste facilities to deforestation projects, we have seen controversies where development was decided behind closed doors and public voices were an afterthought. We’re here today as civil society, as concerned Malaysians, to say: this must change. My talk will focus on three key areas where Malaysia can do better – and indeed must do better – to protect our environment and our communities:

Public participation in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA),

Public engagement in environmental governance, and

Protection of whistleblowers and environmental activists

By looking at Malaysia’s current practices – the gaps and challenges – and learning from international best practices, I will outline concrete, realistic reforms. Together, we can empower our people to participate, ensure our leaders listen, and protect those who speak up for our natural heritage. Let’s begin with the foundation of sound environmental decisions: the Environmental Impact Assessment process.

Improving Public Participation in EIAs

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is meant to be a tool for open, informed decision-making – a study of how a proposed project will affect the environment and communities. Malaysia introduced EIAs as a legal requirement decades ago, and public participation is supposed to be part of this process. In fact, under the Environmental Quality Act 1974 and its 2015 regulations, project proponents in Peninsular Malaysia must “publicly display” EIA reports for comment . However, in practice, public participation in EIAs here is woefully inadequate . Let’s examine why.

First, accessing EIA reports is often difficult. There is no single, consistent public platform for EIAs – citizens may have to travel to government offices or even purchase a copy of bulky reports just to know what’s inside . These reports can be hundreds of pages long, filled with technical jargon, making it hard for ordinary folks to understand them without expert help . Imagine a fisherman or a farmer trying to decipher an EIA on a coastal reclamation or a logging project – the odds are stacked against them. And in some cases, even getting the report isn’t enough: in Sarawak, unlike in Peninsular Malaysia, there is currently no legal requirement at all for public participation in EIAs . It’s entirely up to the project proponent whether to consult the public in Sarawak, which leaves communities there effectively voiceless in projects that may alter their lands and livelihoods.

Second, the timing and scope of public input are limited. Often, by the time an EIA is revealed for public comment, the project is already well on its way. Key decisions – like the project location or design – may be set in stone, giving the public little chance to influence outcomes. A consultant hired by the project proponent might hold a dialogue, but frequently only with selected community representatives (for example, a village head who is on the government’s payroll) . This means many affected villagers’ opinions never make it into the report. When written comments are invited, the window for feedback can be short, and there is no guarantee that agencies truly consider the objections raised. In one high-profile case – the Lynas rare-earth refinery in Kuantan – residents and activists submitted voluminous protests and even held mass demonstrations against the project, yet the development still went ahead regardless . According to one analysis, almost all the public comments on Lynas’s EIA were objections, but the previous government pushed forward and approved the plant . This not only undermines public trust, it defeats the purpose of an EIA as a platform to address legitimate community concerns.

Third, there are structural weaknesses in how EIAs are done. Right now in Malaysia, project developers hire and pay the environmental consultants who conduct the EIA studies . This can be a conflict of interest – consultants might feel pressured to produce a favorable report for the client footing the bill. Furthermore, there is no limit to how many times a developer can resubmit a revised EIA if the first one is deemed unsatisfactory . In practice, a company can keep tweaking the report until it passes, potentially using public feedback not to genuinely improve the project, but to better “sell” it. This loophole allows what one NGO calls “EIA shopping” – repeatedly altering paperwork until approval is secured, rather than addressing the core problems raised by the community . Such practices turn public participation into a mere box-ticking exercise instead of a meaningful dialogue.

So how do we fix this? I propose several realistic reforms for EIAs in Malaysia, learning from international best practices and our own activists’ recommendations:

Make information accessible. All EIA reports and related documents must be free and easy to obtain. The government should set up a central online EIA repository where anyone can download reports, view summaries in plain language, and track open EIA comment periods . For those without good internet access, local government offices and libraries could keep physical copies. No more making the public pay high fees or travel long distances just to see what a proposed project is about. Transparency is non-negotiable.

Engage early and widely. Public participation should begin before the EIA report is even drafted. This means holding public consultations during the project scoping stage, when basic questions – Should we even proceed with this project here? What alternatives exist? – are still on the table. It also means involving all stakeholders: not just the village head or a token NGO, but ordinary residents, indigenous communities, local experts, women and youth groups, etc. We must ensure the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is respected – especially for our Orang Asal (indigenous peoples) – so that communities have a real say in projects on their land . In practical terms, FPIC entails meeting communities on their terms, in their language, without coercion, and allowing them to say “no” if a project threatens their rights. Our government has endorsed FPIC at the international level; it’s time to implement it at home by writing it into our laws and guidelines .

Broaden the scope through Strategic Environmental Assessment. Often, multiple projects or repeated small developments can have large cumulative impacts. For example, one new road through a forest might seem minor, but combined with new farms and settlements it spurs, it could devastate an ecosystem. Malaysia should adopt Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) for policies, plans, or large programs, going beyond project-by-project EIAs . An SEA looks at the bigger picture – examining regional or sectoral impacts (like for an entire river basin, or a state’s forestry plan) – and involves the public in shaping broader development strategies. This upstream approach, used in the EU and many countries, ensures environmental and social concerns are baked into planning from the start, not patched on later.

Harmonize and strengthen EIA laws across federal and state jurisdictions. Environmental governance in Malaysia is split – the federal law covers Peninsular Malaysia, but Sabah and Sarawak have their own rules, and they can be weaker on public input . We need a consistent national standard. Ideally, the right to a clean, healthy environment – which the UN now recognizes as a human right – should be enshrined in our Federal Constitution, or at least a robust Environmental Protection Act, to bind all states. Short of constitutional change, at minimum Sarawak must update its laws to mandate public participation in EIAs in line with national policy. No Malaysian should be denied a voice on environmental decisions because of which state they live in.

Accountability for public feedback. Submitting comments to an EIA should not feel like shouting into a void. I urge the authorities to provide written responses to major points raised by the public, and to do so before any project approval is given . If 100 people object that a project will pollute their water, the final report or decision notice should explicitly address that – even if the decision is to approve, the community deserves to know why their concerns were overruled. Setting a deadline for agency responses (for example, within 60 or 90 days after public comments) would demonstrate that feedback is taken seriously . This kind of responsiveness is a key element of good governance and would build public confidence that the EIA is not just an empty ritual.

Independent and quality EIA studies. To restore trust in EIAs, we must tackle conflicts of interest. One idea is to create an independent public fund for EIA consultants: instead of developers hiring them directly, developers would pay into a fund managed by a neutral body, which then assigns qualified consultants to projects. This way, consultants answer to scientific integrity and the law, not the highest bidder. We should also set a limit on repeated EIAs – perhaps after two failed submissions, a project should be reconsidered entirely or scrapped . Continuous resubmissions waste everyone’s time and can be a sign of a fundamentally unsound project. By capping them, we pressure proponents to get it right the first time and discourage the abuse of the system .

The bottom line is that EIA processes in Malaysia need a cultural shift: from treating the public as a nuisance to embracing the public as a partner. When done right, public participation leads to better projects – ones that are environmentally safer, socially accepted, and even economically more sustainable. Let’s tap into the local knowledge and passion our citizens have. After all, who better to identify a river’s importance than those who drink from it, or the value of a forest than those who live by it? By improving how we conduct EIAs, Malaysia can move closer to the global best practices set out in frameworks like the Rio Declaration’s Principle 10 – which calls for access to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters – and even the Aarhus Convention standards adopted in Europe. Our neighbors and trading partners are raising the bar on environmental scrutiny; Malaysia should not lag behind.

Enhancing Public Engagement in Environmental Governance

Beyond individual project assessments, environmental governance encompasses the broader decision-making about how we manage natural resources, enforce laws, and develop policies. This arena, too, needs the voices of the people. We know that environmental issues – be it climate change, biodiversity loss, or pollution – ultimately affect all of us. So the process of governing the environment cannot be left to a small group of officials or industry players behind closed doors. How can we make environmental governance in Malaysia more inclusive, transparent, and accountable to the public?

Let’s start with a stark fact: Malaysia currently has no federal Freedom of Information (FOI) law guaranteeing public access to environmental data. This is a glaring gap. Many countries, including some developing nations, have FOI or “right to information” laws that allow citizens to request data on pollution, land use, or government contracts. In Malaysia, we often rely on government goodwill or sporadic disclosures. The result is that communities might not even know about environmental dangers until a crisis hits – whether it’s a factory illegally dumping waste or a hillside development that threatens landslides. This must change. Encouragingly, the government’s new draft National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights includes a commitment to implement a Freedom of Information Act and improve whistleblower protection . We in civil society applaud this promise and insist it be followed through with real legislation. A strong FOI law should ensure that environmental information is proactively published and easily accessible. For example, data on air and water quality, maps of logging and mining concessions, environmental impact studies, and development plans should be available to the public without hassle . If a community is worried about a nearby factory, they shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to find out its emission levels or past violations – that data should be at their fingertips. Open data builds trust and enables citizens, scientists, and journalists to participate meaningfully in environmental debates.

Next, consider how policies and laws are made. Too often, decisions that affect our environment are taken without sufficient public consultation. How many of us have been caught by surprise by a new highway project or a sudden logging approval? This top-down approach breeds public anger and, frankly, leads to poorer outcomes. We need to bake public engagement into the policy-making process itself. This means when the government is developing an environmental policy – say, a new climate change law, or amendments to the Environmental Quality Act – they should solicit input from civil society, community leaders, independent experts, and ordinary citizens. And not just as a token gesture, but in a structured, transparent way.

There has been some progress: for instance, the Department of Environment (DOE) recently put out a Consultation Paper on proposed amendments to the Environmental Quality Act 1974 on a public portal, inviting comments from stakeholders . The consultation (held in May-June 2025) covered several areas from pollution control to EIA procedure, showing that the government “welcomes public comments” on environmental law reform . This is a positive step. We should encourage more use of platforms like the Unified Public Consultation (UPC) website for all major environmental decisions. Why not have draft forestry guidelines or river basin management plans posted online for feedback? Why not hold town hall meetings in affected areas when a big policy shift is on the table? Public engagement should be ongoing, not occasional.

However, it’s not just about providing input – it’s about the public having a seat at the table. I propose that Malaysia establish formal mechanisms for environmental stakeholder engagement. For example, we could strengthen the roles of bodies like the Environmental Quality Council (which is provided for under our law) to include more NGO representatives, scientists, and community voices, and have its advice made public. At the local level, states and municipalities could form Environment and Climate Action Councils that include citizen representatives to discuss local environmental issues (such as city green spaces, waste management, or flood control measures). This kind of participatory governance has been tried elsewhere with success – it turns passive residents into active partners in sustainability. When people see their input reflected in decisions, it fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility towards the environment.

Another critical area of engagement is with indigenous and rural communities who are stewards of Malaysia’s richest ecosystems. These communities often have traditional knowledge and sustainable practices that can guide modern policy. We should be engaging them not only when there’s a conflict (like a logging concession granted on their land) but in mapping and managing resources proactively. Some best practices we can emulate: In Sabah and Sarawak, NGOs have worked with indigenous groups to map ancestral lands and community use zones. The government should recognize and support such initiatives, integrating community maps into official land-use plans. On a national scale, Malaysia should consider ratifying the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, as a sign of commitment to uphold their rights, including the right to be consulted and to manage their resources . Indeed, fulfilling our commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples means giving these communities a stronger voice in governance – their consent and insight are invaluable .

Finally, public engagement must be backed by access to justice. Even the best participatory processes cannot guarantee that every voice will prevail – disagreements and competing interests are inevitable. What matters is that when people believe a decision is wrong or illegal, they have a fair chance to challenge it. This means strengthening avenues for the public to appeal or review environmental decisions. For instance, if an EIA is approved despite glaring issues, affected communities or NGOs should be able to bring the case to an independent tribunal or court without facing overly strict rules of legal standing. In the past, Malaysian courts were quite restrictive about who had the right to sue for environmental matters – treating public interest litigants as busybodies. This has slowly improved, but we could solidify it by formalizing citizens’ right to environmental legal action. Some countries have environmental courts or ombudsmen specifically to handle such disputes. Perhaps Malaysia could establish a dedicated Environmental Ombudsman or Commission – an independent office where citizens can file complaints about environmental harm or procedural failings, which can investigate and recommend remedies. Additionally, aligning with Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, we should ensure that court procedures for environmental cases are affordable and not unduly complicated, so that a residents’ association or a fisherfolk union can seek justice on behalf of their environment.

In summary, an engaged public leads to better environmental governance. When people have information, a voice in decisions, and a path to seek justice, we get outcomes that are more sustainable and fair. Policies gain legitimacy, conflicts can be resolved peacefully, and we harness the collective wisdom of society. Malaysia has a vibrant civil society and a concerned public – it’s high time we leverage that strength in every aspect of environmental decision-making. As the saying goes, “Nothing about us without us.” Environmental governance is about all of us, so let’s make sure everyone’s invited to participate.

Protecting Whistleblowers and Environmental Activists

The third pillar of my talk is about safety and rights – specifically, the need to protect those courageous individuals who speak up to defend the environment. Public participation means little if people are afraid that raising concerns will lead to retaliation. And policies on paper won’t save a single river if activists on the ground are silenced by threats or lawsuits. Malaysia must strengthen protections for whistleblowers, activists, and community defenders, so that truth can be told and injustices exposed without fear.

We do have a law called the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, intended to shield individuals who report wrongdoing. However, this law has serious limitations in practice. To date, it has been used very sparingly – fewer than 1,000 whistleblowers have been given protection since the law came into force . Why so few? One reason is that the Act currently forces whistleblowers to report only to certain authorities, and forbids going to the media or the public. If someone witnesses, say, illegal dumping of toxic waste or corruption in the approval of a polluting factory, and they fear the authorities might cover it up, they’re in a bind. If they go to a journalist or an NGO, they lose legal protection under our current law . That’s a problem. Moreover, there’s a clause that if any other law is violated by the whistleblowing (for example, if the information is deemed “official secret”), the protection can be revoked . In Malaysia, the Official Secrets Act (OSA) casts a wide shadow – it can penalize civil servants for leaking almost anything the government labels secret . This means an officer in a land office who leaks documents about an improper logging concession could be punished under OSA, with the whistleblower law unable to protect them.

As a result, we the lawmakers have amended the Whistleblower Protection Act to fix these flaws. The proviso in Section 6(1) has been removed. In other words, even if the improper conduct is contained in a document classified under the OSA, the whistleblower can still be protected. Then, Section 5A also permitted the establishment of a “whistleblower protection committee” to “oversee the implementation” of the WPA and “obtain statistics and data relating to complaints” received by enforcement agencies.

Tragically, around the world and even in Malaysia, some environmental defenders have paid the ultimate price. We remember people like Bill Kayong – a land rights activist in Sarawak who campaigned against destructive logging – who was gunned down in 2016, a horrific reminder of the stakes involved . While his killers were pursued and brought to trial, we must ask: what could have been done to protect him and deter such violence in the first place? We must ensure that violence against activists is never tolerated – that there is justice and accountability for any such attack, and measures in place (like police protection or relocation if needed) for activists under imminent threat. Perhaps Malaysia could establish a rapid response mechanism under the Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) or another body, where activists who feel threatened can seek help and protection.

On a positive note, our judiciary has shown understanding of the importance of activism. In a landmark 2016 case, a gold mining company sued a community activist, Hue Shieh Lee from Bukit Koman, for defamation – simply because she voiced concern that the company’s cyanide use might be harming villagers’ health. The Court of Appeal not only dismissed the suit; it praised the activist’s role, saying she was performing her social duty and exercising her constitutional right to free speech in highlighting residents’ health fears . The judges even acknowledged that activist groups play an important part in our society, contributing to transparency and accountability . And in 2019, the Federal Court upheld this pro-activist decision, reinforcing that companies cannot silence critics without solid proof of falsehood . This is a proud moment in Malaysian jurisprudence – essentially our highest courts affirming that raising environmental and health concerns is not a crime or libel, but a civic responsibility. We should build on this principle. It might be worthwhile to incorporate such principles into statute – for example, explicitly protect statements made in pursuit of environmental or public health advocacy, so long as they are not maliciously false. This would shield community members when they petition against a polluting industry or speak to the media about a local environmental problem.

Additionally, the government is considering innovative incentives to encourage people to report environmental offences. As part of the recent discussions on amending environmental laws, there’s a proposal to use an Environmental Fund to reward whistleblowers who expose pollution or illegal activities . This could be a game-changer: imagine if a worker at a factory who knows his company is dumping waste into a river can confidentially report it and even receive a reward for the risk he took. Of course, such a system must be handled carefully – safeguards would be needed to verify claims and avoid abuse . But the message it sends is powerful: Malaysia values those who protect the environment, not those who destroy it. We should absolutely explore this, alongside stronger whistleblower protections, as part of creating an “enabling environment” for people to do the right thing.

Ultimately, protecting activists and whistleblowers isn’t just about kindness to a few brave souls – it’s about safeguarding everyone’s right to a healthy environment. The information and alerts provided by whistleblowers can prevent disasters. The pressure and scrutiny from activists can push industries to be cleaner and authorities to be more vigilant. When we protect these individuals, we are protecting the checks and balances that keep our air breathable, our water drinkable, and our forests intact.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

My friends, the challenges I’ve outlined – opaque EIA processes, limited public engagement, harassment of environmental defenders – might sound daunting. But the fact that we recognize these problems is a sign of progress. It means we know what must be done, and now it’s about mustering the political will and public support to do it.

As Malaysians, we are blessed with an incredible natural heritage: ancient rainforests, vibrant seas, rich biodiversity, and cultures that have lived in harmony with nature for centuries. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to manage these treasures wisely and democratically. Public participation, good governance, and protections for defenders are not abstract ideals – they are practical necessities if we want development that is sustainable and just. Without them, we get top-down decisions that harm communities, we get secrecy that breeds corruption and environmental damage, and we get heroes punished while polluters go free. With them, we pave the way for a greener, fairer Malaysia – where development decisions balance economic needs with environmental limits and community welfare, where every citizen feels they have a voice and a stake in environmental stewardship, and where those who stand up for the planet are celebrated, not persecuted.

So what can each of us do leaving this room today? As civil society members, we must keep pushing for these reforms. Lobby your elected representatives to introduce or support laws on freedom of information, on anti-SLAPP, on stronger whistleblower protections. When public consultations (like the DOE’s recent one) are announced, mobilize your networks to send in comments – let’s show that the public wants to be involved and has substantive ideas to contribute. Use the media – traditional and social – to highlight cases where public participation was ignored or activists were threatened, and to highlight positive examples too, so we create pressure for change.

To our government officials and policymakers who may be listening: have courage to partner with the people. Embrace the fact that inclusive decision-making leads to better outcomes. Implement the commitments you have made – for example, turn that draft National Action Plan’s promises into law and practice . Remember that a development project is not truly “successful” if it bulldozes the rights and livelihoods of citizens. Economic growth that comes at the cost of environmental devastation and public distrust is a false prosperity. The real prosperity is when a community can see a new project and say: “Yes, we agreed to this, we helped shape it, and we will benefit from it without suffering harm.” That is the development we want.

And to my fellow Malaysians, the concerned public: your voice matters. Get involved in whatever way you can. Attend public hearings, join local environmental committees, support NGOs doing this important work. Even something as simple as writing a letter to the editor or sharing verified information on social media helps build a culture of informed engagement. If you see wrongdoing – an illegal clearing of a mangrove, a factory pipe releasing strange effluent – speak up. Know that there are organizations and laws (imperfect though they may be) that can back you up. You are not alone. Every great environmental victory – be it saving a forest, cleaning up a river, or preventing a harmful project – began with ordinary people refusing to stay silent.

In closing, let’s envision the Malaysia we could have in a few years if we take these steps: When an EIA for a new project is launched, communities are consulted from day one, the information is transparently shared, and the project is modified to address local concerns – or canceled if the risks are too great. When environmental policies are crafted, civil society and community voices sit at the table alongside officials and business, co-creating solutions. When someone exposes an environmental crime or speaks out for conservation, they are thanked and protected, not vilified or threatened. That Malaysia is within our reach. It’s not a fantasy; it’s a choice – a choice that leaders and citizens must make together.

The environment is our common heritage and our shared responsibility. By improving participation, governance, and protections, we empower Malaysians to jointly safeguard our nation’s natural wealth. Let’s raise our voices for the voiceless forests and rivers. Let’s support the brave souls who champion environmental justice. Let’s build a democratic, green Malaysia that leads by example in our region. The time for action is now – our planet cannot wait, and neither can we.

Thank you. Together, let’s make this vision a reality – for our children and for the only Earth we have.

Empowering Malaysians in Environmental Decision-Making