C4 said the bill, tabled for its first reading yesterday, had failed to mention any criteria for individuals appointed to the committee.

“C4 strongly recommends that the government set out a transparent appointment process with a clear set of guidelines defining the criteria of individuals qualified for appointment.

“In the same vein, the government is urged to consider a diverse set of individuals for the committee, including members from academia and civil society,” it said in a statement today.

The anti-corruption watchdog also urged the government to define the timeframe for the establishment of a centralised agency to oversee whistleblower protection.

It highlighted a previous statement by law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said that the establishment of the committee under the bill is only a “temporary fix”.

“Hence, it is strongly advised that the government sets out a clear timeline for the establishment of such a (centralised) agency, and defines its powers, structure and functions in the next parliamentary meeting,” it said.

C4 said that previously, the whistleblower protection framework had been the subject of criticism because of its lack of streamlining among enforcement agencies that confer whistleblower protection, leading to confusion among potential whistleblowers.

The bill also removes a proviso in the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) 2010 that disallows individuals from receiving protection if the disclosure is prohibited by written law.

It seeks to insert the word “wilfully” under Section 11(1)(a) of the WPA, which effectively requires enforcement agencies to revoke protection if the “whistleblower himself has wilfully participated in the improper conduct disclosed”.

Where once protection would be immediately revoked in the event that an individual was part of wrongdoing, whistleblowers are now granted more leniency, C4 said.

It, however, questioned if the amendment to insert the word “wilfully” would meaningfully assist whistleblowers as enforcement agents have no discretion under the WPA to decide on revocation of such protection.

“Therefore, if an enforcement agent concludes that a whistleblower has wilfully participated in the misconduct reported, the whistleblower automatically loses protection,” it said.

C4 pointed out that the bill is silent on a mechanism for the whistleblower to challenge the revocation due to such wilful misconduct.

“Beyond challenging the revocation of their protection in court – which would put a whistleblower at risk – what mechanisms are there for a whistleblower to prove their involvement unwilful?” it said.

Other missing reforms

C4 urged the government to widen the scope of protection under the bill to expand disclosure channels to cover instances where disclosure of the misconduct is conveyed to the private sector, civil society organisations, MPs, and the media.

The group also said the government should consider improved physical protection for whistleblowers as the WPA currently only provides protection of confidential information, immunity from civil and criminal action, as well as protection “against detrimental action”.

“At present, the WPA fails to place any obligation upon the government to provide or facilitate access to legal or psychological support services for whistleblowers, which must be remedied,” it said.