Locus standi

 

I was scrolling through my blog posts to see material on transparency which is being touted by our CM, YB Hajiji,  TYT Tun Musa Aman and the Sultan of Perak.

I found this nugget on Locus Standi. It remined me of the 2 meetings with DBKK on 5.5.25 and 6.11.25 where the architect Ar. Lee Yik Soon said that I had no locus standi to attend the meeting. 

A narrow locus standi requirement can shield public authorities from scrutiny, as it restricts who can question their decisions. This is particularly problematic in urban planning, where projects like those overseen by DBKK impact entire communities, not just immediate stakeholders.

To align with good governance, locus standi should be interpreted broadly to allow meaningful public participation, especially in matters affecting community welfare, such as urban planning decisions by DBKK. The principles of openness and transparency require that citizens, even those not directly affected, have a voice in processes that shape their environment.

 The law on locus standi, is outdated, and is clearly contrary to the principles of good governance — i.e. “openness, transparency, integrity, and accountability”.

The traditional test for locus standi in Malaysia was historically restrictive, requiring a person to demonstrate a "specific legal right" or a direct personal interest that has been adversely affected by a public authority’s decision. This was evident in cases like Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] where the Federal Court emphasized that only those with a direct personal interest could challenge administrative actions.

However, over time, Malaysian courts have progressively liberalized the interpretation of locus standi, particularly in public interest litigation, to align with broader access to justice. In Malaysian Trade Union Congress v Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi [2013], the Court of Appeal adopted a more flexible approach, allowing applicants to demonstrate a "sufficient interest" rather than a strictly personal or proprietary right. This shift acknowledges that public interest issues, such as environmental concerns, urban planning, or governance matters, may warrant broader standing for individuals or groups acting in the public’s interest.

Despite this evolution, challenges remain. The application of locus standi in administrative settings, such as meetings with public bodies like DBKK, often depends on the discretion of the authority or individual chairing the meeting. In my case, Ar. Lee Yik Soon’s assertion that I lacked locus standi to attend DBKK meetings on May 5 and June 11, 2025, suggests a narrow interpretation of standing, possibly rooted in the outdated view that only directly affected parties (e.g., property owners or project stakeholders) have a right to participate. This raises concerns about whether such an interpretation aligns with contemporary expectations of good governance.

Fortunately, the DBKK Director, Datuk Sr. Lifred Wong told the architect that it was his discretion.