TI-M president Muhammad Mohan cited proposed amendments to Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711), which offer protection to whistleblowers who “unwillingly” participate in improper conduct.
Currently, the provision states that an “enforcement agency shall revoke the whistleblower protection conferred if it is of the opinion based on its investigation that the whistleblower had participated in the improper conduct disclosed”.
The bill seeks to amend this by adding the word “wilfully”, ensuring that whistleblowers who “had wilfully participated in the improper conduct disclosed” will lose their protection.
Muhammad said this risked discouraging whistleblowers who willingly took part in wrongdoing but were later remorseful over their actions and wanted to expose the offence.
“Why must the ‘absolute innocence’ of the whistleblower be the criterion for the protection not to be revoked? What if the whistleblower who was not the main wrongdoer became repentant of their participation later and wanted to ‘make things right’? Shouldn’t they still be given a chance for whistleblower protection?
“What TI-M and other civil society organisations ask for is not that all whistleblowers who participate in improper conduct be given protection, but that enforcement agencies be given the discretion whether to still grant protection on a case-by-case basis.
“In other words, the word ‘shall revoke’ in Section 11 of the Act should be replaced with ‘may revoke’. This would be a much better way of dealing with the issue,” it said in a statement.
Muhammad urged the Prime Minister’s Department’s legal affairs division and the Attorney-General’s Chambers to collaborate with civil society organisations to refine the bill before it was tabled for second reading in June.
“Simply adding the word ‘wilfully’ without addressing this weakness in amending Act 711 will not have an impact. We will almost be back to square one on this issue.
“Such half-baked reforms will not get us anywhere and the dream to reach the top 25 in the global corruption perception index by 2033 will only be more difficult,” he said.
Previously, the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) had said the proposed amendment left enforcement agencies with no discretion to decide on revoking such protection.
C4 also said the amendment bill did not provide for a mechanism for the whistleblower to challenge the revocation due to such wilful misconduct.