What constraints and legal reasons prevent Malaysia from releasing raw military radar logs for MH370?
Executive summary
Malaysia has repeatedly declined to publish raw military primary-surveillance-radar (PSR) logs from the night MH370 vanished, a decision that sits at the intersection of contested provenance, diplomatic sensitivity and accusations of concealment from investigators [1] [2]. Reporting and official inquiries show the military did track an unidentified target after civilian radar contact was lost, but the military PSR dataset itself remains unavailable and contested by independent analysts [3] [4] [1].
1. The factual starting point: military radar tracked MH370 but the raw logs are missing
Official and investigative reports confirm Malaysian military long‑range radar continued to detect the aircraft after civilian transponders stopped, and that those returns were used to infer a reroute across the peninsula until the contact left military radar at 02:22 MYT [3] [4]. Yet multiple independent groups and researchers note the underlying Malaysian military PSR files were never released publicly, leaving only processed traces and civilian radar datasets for outsiders to study [1] [5].
2. Questions of provenance and verifiability constrain disclosure
Technical observers have pointed out inconsistencies in the military traces — notably implausible altitude excursions and filtering differences — which make researchers question the data’s raw integrity and urge re‑examination of provenance before broader release [6] [7]. When authorities or third parties publish only processed layers or “indicative” positions rather than raw returns, it raises legitimate concerns about whether releasing the original files would clarify or simply compound analytical disputes [7] [1].
3. Diplomatic and air‑sovereignty sensitivity complicates publication
Some commentators argue the military radar records implicate cross‑border flight paths — including apparent penetration of neighbouring Indonesian airspace — which could create diplomatic friction and legal questions about disclosure of transgressions captured on defence systems [7]. That claim appears in analysis and advocacy circles as a motive for caution; reporting indicates that regional radar coverage and inter‑state notifications became a live issue in the early days of the search [8] [7].
4. Operational security and defence capability concerns are implicit constraints
While Malaysia’s official statements cited in these sources do not lay out a public legal statute barring release, the longstanding practice internationally is to protect military sensor data that could reveal coverage gaps, technical specifications, or vulnerabilities — an implicit operational‑security rationale that helps explain reluctance to publish raw PSR logs [8] [5]. Journalistic coverage and defence analyses flagged “military gaps” and procedural failings, underscoring why an air force might be cautious about full transparency [8].
5. Chain‑of‑custody, investigation integrity and classification issues
Investigators and independent groups have repeatedly asked for a full copy of radar and communications logs, but official investigative processes, classification of military records, and concerns about contaminating evidence or compromising ongoing inquiries have been invoked in other contexts as reasons to control release — factors evident in how data sharing with international partners was described early in the search [5] [3]. The safety investigation reports and follow‑up briefings supplied processed timelines and figures but did not publish raw military PSR dumps [9] [10].
6. Accusations of withholding versus official cooperation with partners
Multiple media reports and members of the independent technical community allege the Malaysian military and agencies withheld crucial radar data from foreign investigators and even from the Australian search effort, creating distrust and fueling calls for publication [2] [5]. At the same time, some reporting indicates Malaysia did share radar playbacks selectively with certain international authorities, suggesting a partial rather than absolute embargo on data sharing [5].
7. The technical reality: some useful civilian data is public while PSR remains opaque
Civilian primary and secondary radar files have been published in more processed forms and have been used by analysts to reconstruct portions of MH370’s path; but the missing military PSR remains the conspicuous hole that independent groups argue could materially change search geometry if verified — an argument that has kept pressure on Kuala Lumpur to disclose more [1] [4].
8. What the reporting cannot prove and the limits of the public record
The sources document the absence of raw military PSR logs, technical inconsistencies reported by analysts, diplomatic sensitivity about airspace incursion, and accusations of deliberate withholding [1] [7] [2]. The public record supplied here does not include an explicit Malaysian legal statute or a formal government declaration stating “we will not release these files because…”; therefore it is not possible from these sources alone to assert the precise legal instrument or classified rule Malaysia is invoking to prevent publication.