LETTER | I refer to the letter by the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) titled “CCM’s response to TI-M on beneficial ownership information” published on May 22, 2025.

In a world where freedom of information, which promotes values like accountability and transparency, is the antidote to corruption, Malaysia risks falling behind.

While global financial watchdogs continue to push for reasonable openness in corporate ownership, I humbly opine that Malaysia’s latest regulations on access to beneficial ownership (BO) information tend to leave the public in the dark.

In Malaysia, under the Companies (Access to the Register and Information Relating to Beneficial Ownership) Regulations 2025, access to BO data is primarily restricted to enforcement agencies and reporting institutions.

Even beneficial owners can only view their own records. The general public? Completely shut out.

Meanwhile, it is understood that public scrutiny under certain circumstances is of paramount importance.

In the context of public procurement, for instance, if there is no public access, journalists and civil society cannot investigate whether a company that wins a lucrative government tender is secretly owned by any relatives of a politician or a government official.

Malaysia’s current regulations provide no meaningful avenue for the public to monitor potential conflicts of interest in government contracts, despite international best practices recommending the disclosure of beneficial ownership in procurement awards.

In such a context, access to beneficial ownership information can support anti-corruption efforts and limit opportunities for abuse in awarding public procurement or extractive contracts.

Therefore, by referring to the guidelines titled “Unmasking Control: A Guide to Beneficial Ownership Transparency” published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2022, Malaysia can still address the aforementioned shortcomings with the following proposed reforms.

First, a tiered access system should be introduced. I believe the public in general should be able to access the basic information of the beneficial owners of any companies, such as names and countries of residence, whereas financial institutions and authorities can access more comprehensive records when needed.

This approach strikes a delicate balance between privacy concerns and the need for transparency and good governance.

Second, when we come to ownership in public procurement, the relevant information should be disclosed to the public, who, as the taxpayers, have the right to know.

When public funds are spent, the public has the right to know who benefits behind the scenes.

Hence, the BO information of the awarded companies in public procurement should be reasonably made available to the public to allow civil society to better monitor and scrutinise the awarding of procurement contracts.

Undeniably, global trends are still in the midst of evaluating the appropriate extent of public access to BO data.

However, I still believe that transparency with reasonable or necessary safeguards should always be the norm.

To build public trust, combat corruption, and attract clean investment, Malaysia must go further.

We should proportionately let sunlight in and move away from unnecessary secrecy.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.