IN Malaysia, climate action is too often mapped out on paper but rarely anchored in law. From the 2009 National Policy on Climate Change (NPCC) 1.0 to its successor, the 2024 NPCC 2.0, both documents outline strategic objectives, pathways and actions aimed at supporting the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy. However, neither NPCC 1.0 nor NPCC 2.0 carries any statutory force.
Although NPCC 2.0 – built around five strategic thrusts and catalytic initiatives – reflects a deeper engagement with Malaysia’s climate change and international commitments, it continues the pattern of soft laws, with ambitions set out but no binding legal accountability.
A Climate Change Act would serve as the backbone of our national climate response. Unlike policy roadmaps, which can be quietly shelved or rebranded with each new administration, legislation binds governments across electoral cycles, thus serving as the backbone of Malaysia’s climate landscape, empowering the formulation and enforcement of policies, measures and actions aligned with national imperatives and international obligations.
It creates durable commitments that cannot be reversed without parliamentary amendment. In short, it transforms climate promises into legal duties.
The urgency of the climate crisis in Malaysia cannot be overstated. We are facing intensifying floods, rising seas, prolonged heatwaves and extreme rainfall. These are not distant threats but lived realities.
Local governments are already grappling with flood defences and heat-adapted urban design but without a national legal framework, these efforts remain piecemeal.
A Climate Change Act would set clear, enforceable targets and define responsibilities across federal, state and local levels, ensuring coordination rather than fragmentation.
Crucially, the Act must establish legally binding targets for emission reduction. Our current commitments under the Paris Agreement, including a 45% reduction in the emissions intensity of GDP by 2030 compared to 2005, are international pledges rather than domestic law.
Malaysia operates under a “dualist system”, a legal framework in which international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, do not automatically generate enforceable domestic legal obligations. Such international commitments require explicit legislative incorporation to achieve a binding effect within domestic law.
This constitutional arrangement stems from Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, where Article 74, interpreted alongside the Federal List, vests Parliament with exclusive jurisdiction over “external affairs”, which includes “treaties, agreements and conventions”.
Furthermore, under Article 80, “executive authority of the Federation extends to all matters, with respect to which Parliament may make laws”. Thus, the Paris Agreement, though binding on Malaysia internationally, requires statutory transposition before its obligations are effective domestically.
Legislated targets provide several crucial advantages. First, they offer clear, well-
defined policy objectives that signal strong governmental commitment and intent, internally to government agencies and externally to investors, industries and the community.
As scholars Rutter and Knighton correctly elucidated, “the effect of legislated targets is to try to bind the hand of successor governments”, helping to anchor long-term decision-making and foster policy continuity across political cycles.
Once targets are enshrined in statutory law, they become legally binding obligations that future governments cannot easily reverse or ignore without undertaking the formal legislative amendment process, thereby providing institutional stability for sustained policy implementation.
Furthermore, the Act must be a vehicle for justice. This means embedding three core principles: distributive justice, to ensure the burdens and benefits of climate action are shared fairly; procedural justice, to guarantee inclusive and equitable participation in climate decision-making; and restorative justice, to address the historical and ongoing harms borne by the most vulnerable.
Central to this is the formal inclusion of the indigenous population. As the original stewards of our nation’s richest ecosystems, their knowledge is invaluable for building climate resilience. The Act must legally mandate their seat at the policy-making table, ensuring their rights to land, resources and self-determination are protected and that climate policies do not perpetuate their marginalisation.
Equally important, the Act must safeguard judicial review. The consultation paper on the proposed Act provides for “legal protection and immunity to designated enforcement units handling compliance matters, particularly those related to data and information disclosure, carbon trading and actions taken to implement RUUPIN (Rang Undang-Undang Perubahan Iklim Negara) or National Climate Change Bill. This will ensure effective enforcement without unnecessary obstacles”.
A plain interpretation suggests this provision insulates enforcement authorities from judicial accountability or procedural contestation when executing their mandated functions.
The drafting reflects a clear intent to preserve enforcement effectiveness, facilitating seamless implementation while reducing barriers that could otherwise impede or compromise regulatory adherence, thus promoting streamlined administrative processes.
Yet, efficiency must not come at the expense of accountability. While streamlined enforcement is essential, it cannot justify insulating government actions from scrutiny.
Courts must retain the power to assess whether ministerial decisions are lawful, rational and consistent with statutory duties. Judicial oversight is not an obstacle; it is a safeguard that ensures climate law is more than rhetoric.
An independent oversight body, akin to a Climate Change Committee, should also be established. It must be structurally autonomous, insulated from political interference and empowered to provide scientific advice, monitor progress and report to the public. Without independence, oversight risks becoming another arm of bureaucracy rather than a credible check on the government.
Finally, the Act must incorporate adaptation and mitigation. Binding mandates should be paired with strategic instruments to build resilience in agriculture, urban planning, health and infrastructure. Climate impacts are already here; adaptation cannot remain voluntary or secondary.
Malaysia stands at a crossroads. With the National Climate Change Bill expected to be introduced soon in Parliament, we have the opportunity to transition from roadmaps to law, from aspirations to obligations.
The bill must be more than symbolic; it must be adequately developed, with clear provisions, binding targets, judicial safeguards and independent oversight. Otherwise, we risk having an Act for the sake of having an Act, without the strength or legitimacy needed to truly transform Malaysia’s climate governance.
A Climate Change Act would not only align us with global best practices but also secure our collective future.
The time for roadmaps has passed. The time for law is now.
Dr Karisma is an independent researcher. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com