Staying True to the Spirit: Whistleblower Protection Amidst Institutional Reforms
A recent development surrounding the proposed amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 raised concerns about the protection afforded to whistleblowers in Malaysia. Specifically, Law and Institutional Reform Minister Azalina Othman Said emphasized the need for whistleblowers to initially report their allegations to enforcement agencies before seeking public protection.
The minister clarified that the agency involved would assess whether the whistleblower warranted protection, asserting that going straight to the public domain was insufficient. This explanation has sparked differing opinions, raising questions about whether the Act offers adequate protection.
A Good Faith Effort?
The reforms aim to better address cases of whistleblowers who act in good faith, making it crucial that the legislation struck a balance. Azalina acknowledged the inconsistency in rewards bestowed upon whistleblowers, emphasizing a need for uniformity.
Conversely, she drew examples from other nations where whistleblowers can share the information publicly within a specified timeline (typically 90 days), ensuring enforcement agencies respond accordingly.
Public Involvement Versus Agency Evaluation
In Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Azam Baki’s recent criticism, he emphasized that the whistleblower shared video recordings alongside an unclear audio recording with Malaysian news portal, Malaysiakini, a move that frustrated the commission’s efforts.
Under the Act’s current framework, the commission assesses whether it can offer the whistleblower protection when the latter brings forward information concerning alleged corruption in Sabah’s assemblymen bribery case. Will the proposed amendment provide for safeguards in cases such as these or maintain the standard practice of publicly sharing information via the news publication?
Current State and Hopes for Growth
As with many institutions striving for growth and improvement, public awareness of best practices can push the needle to better outcomes, as witnessed from the practices exemplified by comparable countries.
Although Malaysia may face challenges in ensuring a balance among transparency, safeguarding the institution, and serving the greater societal good, minister Azalina’s statement marks a significant gesture towards change
FAQs
- Does Malaysia’s Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 provide automatic protection for disclosure to the general public?
NO, according to Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said, whistleblowers must initially file a report to enforcement agencies first. - Are there currently standardized rewards given to whistleblowers in Malaysia for their reporting effort?
NO; rewards for reporting corruption and dishonesty are considered inconsistent and unclear. - Did the Malaysian anti-corruption officials respond favorably to the claims made by Sabah’s video whistleblower?
Reports indicate the opposition from the law enforcement agencies surrounding the handling by the whistleblower amid the investigation to ensure fairness across the process
Please let me know if that meets your needs.