Citing the case involving a purported whistleblower in Sabah, the Center to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4) noted that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was adamant in stating that whistleblower protection is reserved for those who are “clean” and could not be extended to those implicated in the wrongdoing.
However, C4 said, protecting those who have completely clean hands is unrealistic.
“It does not consider the possibility that often the only ones who have access to information of improper conduct are those who are involved with the conduct themselves, especially in cases of corruption which are generally secretive and leave little possibility of exposure or detection by external (parties),” it said in a statement.
C4 said the veracity of information in a disclosure of improper conduct does not hinge on who revealed it.
A public disclosure is no less valid than one made to an enforcement agency, it said.
Yesterday, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief Azam Baki said the bill to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711) is expected to be tabled in Parliament in March or April.
However, Azam said the amendment is still subject to the Cabinet’s approval.
C4 also said the bill should widen the scope of disclosure channels.
It said that currently, there are restrictions placed on avenues of disclosure and disclosure to third parties as well as the uncompromising rules surrounding revocation of protection, which serve to discourage potential whistleblowers from coming forward.
It cited law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said’s statement in the Dewan Rakyat this week that whistleblowers who make public disclosures without reporting it to an enforcement agency would not be covered by the Act.
C4 said the preamble to Act 711 stipulates that the law is aimed at combating corruption and other wrongdoing by “encouraging and facilitating disclosures of improper conduct”.
In order to accomplish such goals, it said, there is a need to simplify the whistleblower reporting procedure as much as possible.
It pointed out that oversight agencies such as MACC, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission, and Suhakam are empowered to initiate inquiries without receiving formal complaints.
“So, why is there such a limitation placed here? The insistence to require the use of the ‘proper channels’ only serves to dilute the effectiveness of the entire mechanism,” it said.