PETALING JAYA: Laws conflicting with the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 shall be synchronised as the government makes amendments to the Act to strengthen protection for whistleblowers, say transparency interest groups.
Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) chief executive officer Pushpan Murugiah (pic) said there is a need to amend Section 6 of the Whistleblower Protection Act, currently conflicting with other laws like the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and Section 203A of the Penal Code.
“Without harmonising these provisions, the purpose of whistleblower amendments becomes redundant, as potential whistleblowers face severe penalties,” he said.
“There are extremely restrictive provisions that pose a danger to any whistleblower from government departments seeking to expose corruption.
Pushpan also highlighted the proposed reward scheme, recognising its potential for financial support to whistleblowers who might lose income.
Pushpan said these amendments would impact cases like the Sabah mining whistleblowing scandal.
Referring to a United Nations Convention against Corruption Conference of the States Parties resolution, he said it defined good faith as protecting any person reporting reasonably true information, regardless of their intentions.
He suggested that protection levels could vary, perhaps focusing on safety and family welfare.
Lauding the government’s proposed interim Whistleblower Protection Committee, Pushpan said it was an excellent idea that holds the government accountable before establishing a centralised agency to manage whistleblowers.
He emphasised the importance of involving academics and civil societies in this committee to provide ground-level insights and solutions for a more comprehensive process, facilitating the transition to an effective central agency.
Transparency International Malaysia president Dr Muhammad Mohan said it was high time to reform the old law.
“The Act has been in place for 15 years without changes.
“Civil society organisations have been involved since 2019, but each time we were given a sort of false alarm that it would be tabled in Parliament,” he said.
Expressing disappointment over the stagnant legal reforms, Muhammad highlighted the urgency of these reforms, especially in light of Malaysia’s stagnant Corruption Perceptions Index score.
He also reiterated the necessity of amending Section 6 of the Act, which currently conflicts with other laws like the Penal Code and the OSA.
He pointed out the need for discretion in Section 11 of the Act, allowing investigative officers to decide on granting protection.
“This is important because sometimes whistleblowers provide information with malicious intent,” he said, highlighting the importance of protecting those with genuine intentions.
Muhammad also criticised the existing provisions of the reward system as ineffective.
“From the time the Act was enforced until today, no one has ever been given any reward.
“There should be clearer guidelines and formulas.”
Muhammad also cautioned the government against last-minute disruptions by agencies.
“The public has begun questioning how and where these reforms are taking place.
“I hope the government takes this matter seriously and continues with the necessary actions.
“There might be many objections, and from my six years of experience, I have often seen agencies trying to throw a spanner in the works at the last minute.
“I hope the government takes a bold move and pushes these reforms through,” he added.
On Feb 17, the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department said in a statement that the Act (or Act 711) is being amended to strengthen protection for whistleblowers and to enhance the effectiveness of information sharing.
The division is also proposing to introduce a reward calculation method through regulations under Act 711, utilising ministerial powers under Section 27(1) of the Act, which will be gazetted for enforcement.
