Is The Whistleblower In The Azam Baki Case A Whistleblower

---

And this is the crux of the Lalitha Kunaratnam accusation against MACC’s Azam Baki. She is not a whistleblower because she did not lodge a confidential report to the MACC but published two articles. Hence, she cannot claim whistleblower status. She is merely a journalist who published a story without the backing of evidence. And that is how she will be treated by the law. NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
(Malaysia Now) – Former officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) have reminded all quarters to follow the rule of law in the wake of a barrage of attacks by opposition politicians against the chief commissioner of the anti-graft body.
The Association of Former MACC Officers also warned that the attacks against Azam Baki not only ignored the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ but would also undermine the commission’s main job of fighting corruption.
“The association holds firm to the principle that a person is innocent until proven otherwise through the legal process, rather than through a public trial or trial by media.” (READ MORE HERE)

Also read: When Investigative Journalism Amounts To Sheer Incompetence In June 2008, I received information from one of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s people, Nik Azmi a.k.a. Bul, regarding the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder. This was supposed to have come from a confidential report done by the Military Intelligence and which involved two senior army officers.
I then signed a Statutory Declaration, which I sent to the police officer who was investigating the murder. Basically, it was a confidential police report made in the form of a Statutory Declaration informing the police what I was told and urging the police to investigate the authenticity of this report. I then named all the people allegedly involved, as I had been informed.
The truth is I made no allegation against anyone. I only mentioned what I was informed about this incident and that I leave it to the police to verify the truth or falsity of the matter.
What happened next was most unexpected. An Umno blogger by the name of ‘Big Dog’ published my Statutory Declaration. How did he get a copy? It seems the Special Branch (his neighbour) gave him the copy and asked him to publish it.
The IGP then announced he had heard about my Statutory Declaration, but had not seen it yet, and added that I had made a false allegation. How did the IGP know if he had not seen it yet?
The Attorney-General then announced that action was going to be taken against me and that I was going to be charged for making a false allegation in my Statutory Declaration. How did the AG know if no investigation had been launched yet?
First of all, I made no allegation against anyone. I just said I was told about a certain matter and asked the police to investigate the story I was told.
Secondly, it was a confidential report to the police. Aren’t whistleblowers protected?
The point is, since the Umno blogger ‘Big Dog’ had published my Statutory Declaration on his blog, it was no longer a confidential report and hence I was no longer protected as a whistleblower.
The fact that I did not give Big Dog a copy of my Statutory Declaration and that he received it from the Special Branch was ignored. Hence, I did not publish it, but it was illegally published without my consent.
Furthermore, I did not allege anything. The allegation came from a Military Intelligence officer, and I mentioned that in my Statutory Declaration. Nevertheless, I was arrested and charged for making a false allegation that I never made.
The issue here is that my Statutory Declaration was no longer private and confidential but had been published (illegally, may I add). And that was why I was arrested and charged.
And this is the crux of the Lalitha Kunaratnam accusation against MACC’s Azam Baki. She is not a whistleblower because she did not lodge a confidential report to the MACC but published two articles. Hence, she cannot claim whistleblower status. She is merely a journalist who published a story without the backing of evidence. And that is how she will be treated by the law.
 

---