Immaterial How Whistleblower Exposes Wrongdoing

---

 


YOURSAY | ‘Intent is to get to the truth.’
What if a whistleblower has evidence against PM, PSM asks Azalina
Coward: The method used by the whistleblower to expose wrongdoing is not material. What is important is whether what they are exposing is worthy of protection.
To expect a whistleblower to be whiter than white is unrealistic and is an unacceptable excuse to deny protection.
The whistleblower act anticipates very lenient treatment if he is a co-conspirator.
In Malaysia, we don’t trust the authorities to do the right thing because they are very susceptible to external undue influence. Hence, at times, only going to the press will do.
OrangePanther1466: A very valid point, PSM deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan. Until the institutions of enforcement that we have are truly independent and led by impeccable leaders, I am afraid whistleblowers will still need to resort to the media first to avoid any cover-ups.
That was exactly what Latheefa Koya did when, as MACC chief commissioner, she exposed the Najib tapes to the media before the powers that be could move to cover up the tapes or had time to cook up a story.
She must have had the blessings of or instructed by the prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, to do so, as she reported to him.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said’s logic of denying protection to whistleblowers is illogical.
Whether it’s to the authorities or the media first should not matter as the intent is to get to the truth.
Unless, of course, Azalina is implying the authorities need the time to manage or varnish the facts. So long as the details remain intact and undoctored, it does not matter who gets to see it first.
Koel: Excellent question, Arul. This seems to be just another ploy to discourage people from reporting corrupt practices in high offices.
Why is that? So that cases like the Sabah corruption can be swept under carpets? Remember 1MDB and former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak.
What use was the police?
In the end, it was foreign agencies like the US Justice Department that helped to bring some semblance of justice to this country.
Why did we have to depend on foreigners for our law and order, Azalina?
Looks like the government is literally throwing Malaysians to the wolves instead of introducing reforms and solving the problem of corruption.
BOBBYO: All the government agencies are compromised. It is a fact. Those chosen to lead them are all appointed by the present administration or the previous one.
Azalina is a very senior MP. She knows very well what she is saying.
A good example was how a former attorney-general and MACC tried their level best to stop the investigation into the lMDB caper. How many whistleblowers were hauled to court?
Some are said to have been killed when they went to report illegal activities taking place in their neighbourhood, especially the supply of drugs or gangster activities.
All these have put fear into the hearts of the whistleblowers who know very well that what they report will reach the ears of those involved in illegal activities.
Can we not see it happening in the case of the Sabah-gate scandal? It seems that they are trying to shut down the case.
There is even a report that the governor’s son-in-law is involved. Not forgetting that the whistleblower is being hauled to court.
Will any action be taken during this fiasco? Will those involved be charged?
We know the answer to that. So Arul, after 60 years of independence, nothing has changed and nothing will.
PW Cheng: That’s exactly what the “whistleblower act” is enacted to protect.
The act was enacted due to pressure from the rakyat and NGOs but was carefully designed to protect the elites and rogue political leaders.
So the hope of any changes to the act is zero unless, again, the people and NGOs put tremendous pressure on the sitting government.
For all politicians, they will say one thing when in opposition, but when in power they will want the legal framework (which they once opposed) to protect all their shenanigans when in power.
Cogito Ergo Sum: As Arul pointed out, what Azalina said is absurd. We all know what happened to a former attorney-general who had evidence of graft against a former prime minister.
It is now an expected outcome that if a complainant lodges a report, he or she will first be probed, and then no further action will be taken.
The once mighty DAP, with its bastion of top-notch lawyers, are now silent on this fundamental breach of law and common sense.
Someone, please come up with something to counter Azalina’s ignorance.
BrownCarp5561: In this sense, I agree with Arul. If evidence is being handed over in “secret”, possibilities are there that it may “vanish” as though there wasn’t any evidence handed over.
If there is nothing to fear or hide, why not give protection to the person who comes forth publicly? Why must it come with terms and conditions?
ScarletCheetah8198: So far, to my knowledge, no one has been arrested in the Sabah case despite considerable evidence being made available through the media.
What does that say? But if they were ordinary people, it would have been another story.
Uragt: The existing laws and regulations are adequate but only if there’s compliance and enforcement.
Had the officers and managers of Bank Negara Malaysia spoken up on huge donations going into one person’s account, a major scandal could have been prevented.
If Umno’s treasury is properly audited, there won’t be millions in donations unaccounted for.
Or MACC officers not investigated for death-in-interrogation. No one has ever been responsible or liable in the last forty years.
Doc: Only in Malaysia are whistleblowers prosecuted and crooked politicians are portrayed as victims. - Mkini

---