TRANSPARENCY International released its latest Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2024  on 11 February 2025, revealing that Malaysia has neither made improvement nor decline in score (50 out of 100), and thus remained ranked 57 out of 180 countries assessed (Transparency International, 2025).

The lack of progress is somewhat concerning, though not entirely surprising, given the number of corruption scandals that emerged in 2024. Among them was the KLIA Cargo smuggling case, which involved 34 officers and RM2 billion in leakage over three years (Malaysiakini, 2024). This does not include the Sabah corruption scandal, reported in late 2024, which the Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) President Muhammad Mohan said is more likely to be reflected in the CPI 2025 (Malaysiakini, 2025).

Corruption is a major impediment to society and nation-building, and it must be eradicated. However, one often overlooked aspect of anti-corruption efforts is the need for transparency in lobbying activities. The impact of unethical lobbying on public policies can be as detrimental as regular corruption, influencing decision-making in ways that may prioritise private interests over public good.

Lobbying is often viewed negatively, but it is not inherently bad. At its core, lobbying is a neutral tool that influences policymaking, and its impact depend on how it is used. When lobbying serves the greater public good, it becomes a valuable mechanism for advocating positive change. For instance, the ongoing efforts by multiple associations to oppose the 45-hour workweek policy for nurses exemplify lobbying that seeks to protect workers’ rights and promote better working conditions (CodeBlue, 2025), and by extension, have a greater positive impact on the healthcare industry.

As an integral part of democracy, lobbying provides a channel for people to voice their concerns in policymaking. However, without proper regulation, it can also be exploited to serve narrow interests at the expense of society. One such example is the tobacco industry’s influence on governments across multiple countries, which has led to delays, weakening, or even the scrapping of tobacco regulations. This is despite many of these countries being signatories to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), where Article 5.3 explicitly calls for limiting interactions between lawmakers and the tobacco industry.

The Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index (GTIII) 2023, published by the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC), found that 43 out of 90 countries assessed have deteriorated since 2021, making them more susceptible to industry interference (GGTC, 2023). Malaysia is among the countries that have worsened—in fact, it has experienced one of the most significant declines.

Since 2023, the Madani government has taken regressive steps in tobacco control, including delisting liquid nicotine from the Poison List without proper safeguards for youth, scrapping the Generational Endgame (GEG) clause from the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852), and repeatedly delaying its implementation, causing the bill—passed in December 2023—to take effect only in October 2024.

Furthermore, the Deputy Minister of Health, Lukanisman Awang Sauni had admitted in Parliament that lobbyists influenced the decision to remove GEG (CodeBlue, 2024). However, Minister of Health, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad denied this, stating that AGC deemed the law unconstitutional, citing a violation of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution (CodeBlue, 2024a).

Whether the tobacco industry directly influenced lawmakers remains debatable, but it is undeniable that representatives from tobacco companies met with Members of Parliament.

Rest assured, the tobacco industry is not the only one exploiting the lack of lobbying regulation. Mining, healthcare, and oil sectors are among the top industries known for lobbying globally.

The lack of transparency in lobbying has raised concerns over whether policies serve giant corporations rather than the public good.

Regulations are essential to ensure public interest is properly protected. However, a balance must be struck to ensure civil society organisations (CSOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) still have a voice in policymaking.

In short, to ensure lobbying rights are only used to benefit the public instead of those who seek to enrich their wealth.

Laws governing lobbying should require lobbyists to register before engaging in lobbying activities. To avoid burdening CSOs and NGOs, countries with lobbying regulations have employed various systems, with the tiered system proving most effective in limiting corporate influence while preserving public participation in policymaking.

For example, Austria’s Lobbying and Special Interest Group Transparency Law classified lobbying actors into four categories, each with different obligations. However, all are required to disclose data identifying either individual lobbyist or business groups. This categorisation excludes small associations, such as NGOs, as they lack specialised lobbying staff.

Germany, however, includes NGOs in its Lobbying Register Act if they meet any of the conditions listed in the law. However, the Act exempts certain groups from mandatory registration, primarily those without permanent representation that campaign for human rights, democracy, the rule of law, humanitarian causes, or sustainability issues, and their work mainly focuses on other countries or regions.

On the other hand, the Lithuanian regulation on lobbying, despite 2021 amendment expanding the definition of lobbyists, still excludes activities conducted by NGOs for public benefit.

The tiered system employed by these countries is not without its weaknesses. One major concern is astroturfing, where large corporations use NGOs as front for lobbying activities.

For example, Australia's lobbying regulations exclude certain actors, allowing corporations to hijack grassroots campaigns to advance their own interests. A study found that 26% of responses submitted to Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regarding vaping reforms proposals contained text from templates provided by vaping industry-led organisations (The Guardian, 2023).

Additionally, varying disclosure requirements risk unequal treatment of lobbying actors, while the added complexity of such laws may undermine the transparency they aim to achieve. A narrow definition of lobbyists could further reduce the law’s effectiveness.

However, Transparency International warns that a uniform registration and disclosure requirement for all lobbyists could impose disproportionate administrative burdens on organisations with limited technical and financial capacity (Transparency International, 2023).

Moreover, the absence of a tiered system could lead to self-censorship due to strict registration requirements, as seen in the United Kingdom’s Lobbying Act. To avoid being classified as potentially influencing election results—which would require a registration fee exceeding 20,000 British Pounds—some charities chose to censor themselves out of fear of violating the rules.

Thus, when balancing the need to limit industry lobbyists while protecting public influence in policymaking, the tiered system remains the preferred option despite its flaws. However, this does not mean it cannot be improved.

When the Lithuanian government adopted the Law on Lobbying Activities in 2001, its definition of lobbying was so narrow that by 2020, only around 100 lobbyists had registered under the law (Transparency International-Lithuania, 2023). However, after expanding the definition in 2021, the number of registered lobbyists nearly tripled, rising from 122 in December 2022 to 330 in August 2023.

Furthermore, the amended law now requires not only the lobbyists to declare their lobbying activities but also the lobbied individuals, including politicians and government officials.

Although two-thirds of lobbyists did not declare any lobbying activity, there was still is a significant increase in reported lobbying, with declarations five times higher than all previous electronic records combined. Most importantly, more Lithuanian parliamentarians have publicly disclosed their meetings with lobbyists and interest groups.

While some issues still need to be addressed, the Lithuanian law has enhanced lobbying transparency. This is reflected in Lithuania’s improving performance in CPI, which reached a record high of 63 in CPI 2024.

Beyond refining the tiered system, Malaysia could institutionalise an Input-Output-Outcome-Impact (IOOI) framework to reinforce transparency, accountability, and measurable results in lobbying practices. By embedding IOOI into policymaking, each lobbying campaign would be required to publicly present a justification—supported by data, science, and economics—explaining why it is expected that inputs (resources required) and proposed outputs (tangible and intangible manifestation of intervention activities) will lead to (real-world benefits / changed lives), ultimately culminating in impacts (higher-level intergenerational goals).

EMIR Research has consistently urged making IOOI integral to policymaking to protect the public interest from narrow, vested agendas. A well-designed IOOI framework, especially for lobbying oversight, would enhance public trust through transparent reporting and drive continuous improvement by setting and revisiting clear targets. With metrics tied to societal benefits, regulators could better assess whether lobbying efforts align with national priorities and advance Malaysia’s progress.

Transparency is the cornerstone of good governance. To combat corruption, regulating lobbying activities is a crucial step forward.




Chia Chu Hang is a Research Assistant at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.