Corruption and Cronyism: The Urgent Need for Accountability
Lack of Support for Whistleblower
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) has questioned the lack of support by MPs and assemblymen for a witness in an alleged case of assemblymen discussing bribes for a project licence. C4 lauded Kepong MP Lim Lip Eng, who has committed to sharing the evidence and names of those involved in Parliament should the whistleblower reach out to him. However, he stands in the minority in seeking the truth behind this matter. C4 heavily criticises the deafening silence from other MPs and assemblymen on this issue.
Oversight Flaw Exposed
If the allegations were true, it exposes a critical flaw in oversight by the elected representatives. This is the exact opportunity for elected officials to rebuild that trust and rid our political system of corruption and reform how we protect our whistleblowers.
Whistleblower Protection Act
The whistleblower’s case highlights the urgency for an asset declaration law to ensure politicians are held accountable. C4 said the whistleblower’s fears were not without basis, as Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 states that the protection can be revoked if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the witness was a participant in the alleged misconduct. Whistleblowing is an extremely precarious task – the government cannot simply ask the whistleblower to report to an institution they do not trust.
Asset Declaration Law
C4 also said this incident strengthened the case for an asset declaration law to ensure politicians can be held accountable and subject to public inquiry should there be unjustified or disproportionate wealth in their possession.
MACC’s Role
On Saturday, senior Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officers were reported to have met a lawyer over the alleged case, who played a 17-second audio clip for the officers in which several people were heard having a conversation about money. MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki was quoted as saying the lawyer wanted an agreement that his client would not come under investigation. However, officers disagreed as it was not in line with procedures.
Whistleblower’s Fears
The witness had been urged to file an official complaint so that he could be granted protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. C4 said the whistleblower’s fears were not without basis, as Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 states that the protection can be revoked if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the witness was a participant in the alleged misconduct.
Conclusion
The whistleblower’s case highlights the urgent need for accountability in our political system. The lack of support from MPs and assemblymen for the whistleblower is a worrying sign, and it is crucial that elected officials take concrete steps to rebuild trust and reform the system. An asset declaration law is essential to ensure politicians are held accountable and subject to public inquiry.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010?
A: The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 is a law that protects individuals who report improper conduct or corrupt activities.
Q: What is the purpose of an asset declaration law?
A: An asset declaration law is essential to ensure politicians are held accountable and subject to public inquiry should there be unjustified or disproportionate wealth in their possession.
Q: Why is whistleblower protection important?
A: Whistleblower protection is important because it allows individuals to report improper conduct or corrupt activities without fear of retaliation or persecution.
Q: What is the role of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in this case?
A: MACC is responsible for investigating and taking action against alleged corrupt activities. In this case, MACC officers met with a lawyer who played an audio clip of alleged corrupt activities.