7 FEBRUARY 2025
PRESS STATEMENT
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) is optimistic about the beginning of the first Dewan Rakyat session of 2025 with the planned introduction of two major reform laws: the new Parliamentary Services Act and amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. We welcome the tabling of these Bills and hope that they will be sufficiently comprehensive to improve governance, allow for more effective government oversight, and facilitate the detection of corruption and abuse of power. However there are also indications that these laws may still be flawed, and we urge the government to consider our recommendations to further strengthen the contents of the bill.
Reintroduction of the Parliamentary Services Act
Calls to revive the PSA after its repeal in 1992 have been longstanding, and the reintroduction of the PSA has been touted as a core feature of the Madani government’s reform agenda. It is imperative however that the new PSA is not merely a facsimile of the old PSA 1963, which merely established a Parliamentary Service separate from the general public service and provided for certain aspects of staffing and remuneration. With this new PSA, C4 Center hopes to see an expansion of the Parliamentary administrative infrastructure and greater autonomy for the institution in matters of budgeting and staffing.
The role of the legislature as a check upon the executive has been diluted over decades of centralisation of power, and the introduction of this law presents an opportunity to reverse this – thus it is important for the PSA to empower Parliament to autonomously access adequate financial resources (potentially in a consultative approach mirroring local governments under Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1976) and skilled impartial human resources.
A key element that we hope shall be included in this new framework is an expansion of the role of thematic Select Committees, or even the power to create Offices of Parliament directly under the governance of the Parliamentary Service. Presently, the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat do not provide for permanent thematic Select Committees on matters such as governance and human rights, and it depends on the government of the day to set these up in an ad hoc manner with no guarantee of continuation past the tenure of that administration. With greater funding and permanent staff, these thematic Select Committees could play a far larger and consistent role in reviewing laws and policies.
A larger administrative infrastructure could also enable Parliament to fulfil a long-awaited call for greater independence of domestic oversight institutions such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM), by instating parliamentary votes of Commissioners. The present system of executive appointment holds the risk of interference and improper considerations influencing the selection process. Democratising the appointment process by setting up voting procedures — facilitated by impartial Parliamentary staff not beholden to the Executive — could limit these concerns. Indeed, Malaysia has already committed to this proposal in principle at the international level during the nation’s 4th Universal Periodic Review before the UN Human Rights Council in February 2024.
Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010
Criticism of the inadequacy of the whistleblower protection framework in Malaysia has centered on the inherent limitations placed upon whistleblowers under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WBPA) 2010 itself. Restrictions placed on avenues of disclosure and disclosure to third parties as well as the uncompromising rules surrounding revocation of protection tend to create a chilling effect that will only serve to discourage potential whistleblowers from coming forward.
Several announced amendments to the WBPA 2010 are welcomed, including the introduction of a centralised agency to oversee the implementation of the Act, resolution of conflicts with other laws, and implementation of a standard scale for rewards to whistleblowers. However, recent statements by members of the administration indicate that the government is choosing to maintain an overall restrictive approach to whistleblowing. In the wake of the Sabah whistleblower case in November 2024, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was adamant in stating that whistleblower protection is reserved for those who are “clean” and could not be extended to those implicated in the wrongdoing. Earlier this week when speaking in Parliament, Azalina Othman also stated in the same vein that those who make public disclosures without resorting to an enforcement agency will not be covered by the Act.
The preamble to the WBPA 2010 explains that the Act aims “to combat corruption and other wrongdoings by encouraging and facilitating disclosures of improper conduct”. In order to accomplish this goal, the framework should endeavour to simplify the whistleblower reporting procedure as much as possible. The government should recognise that establishing additional unnecessary hurdles contradicts the ethos of the Act.
Firstly, the idea of imposing a “purity test” on whistleblowers and only protecting those who have completely clean hands is unrealistic. It does not consider the possibility that often the only ones who have access to information of improper conduct are those who are involved with the conduct themselves, especially in cases of corruption which are generally secretive and leave little possibility of exposure or detection by external parties. Resolution 10/8 of the 10th session of the Conference of States Parties to the UN Convention on Corruption notes that the concept of good faith ought to be interpreted as the reporting person’s reasonable belief in the truth of the matter stated, regardless of any personal reasons behind their report. Although it might be a relevant consideration during investigation into the disclosure, the discloser’s personal motivations do not necessarily invalidate the truth of the information they put forth.
Similarly, the veracity of information in a disclosure of improper conduct does not hinge upon the avenue through which the disclosure is made. A public disclosure is no less valid than one made to an enforcement agency. When oversight agencies such as the MACC, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission and SUHAKAM are empowered to initiate inquiries on their own motion without receiving a formal complaint, why is there such a limitation placed here? The insistence to require the use of the “proper channels” only serves to dilute the effectiveness of the entire mechanism.
Synergy of government’s reform agenda
The WBPA amendments shall synergise well with other planned reforms which have been promised this year, such as the introduction of a Right to Information (RTI) Act to facilitate access to information held by government, the Ombudsman Malaysia which may act as the centralised agency tasked with overseeing the implementation of the whistleblower protection framework, and the aforementioned PSA that will hopefully create the necessary administrative infrastructure.
Although one of the planned WBPA amendments is the removal of the proviso under Section 6 to allow protection for disclosures made in contravention of existing laws, we still emphasise that other ancillary regressive laws — such as the Official Secrets Act 1972 and Section 203A of the Penal Code — may still create a chilling effect upon freedom of speech. Thus we hope that along with these promised reforms, these laws shall also be amended or repealed entirely in the interest of encouraging freedom of speech and expression on important public interest topics.
Therefore, C4 Center urges the following:
- The new PSA must be fit for purpose and aligned with international best practice by granting Parliament greater autonomy, rather than a mere administrative reshuffle;
- Amendments to the WBPA 2010 must allow for protection for whistleblowers regardless of their participation in the improper conduct and a widened scope of disclosure channels;
- Ancillary regressive laws such as the Official Secrets Act 1972 and Section 203A of the Penal Code must be amended or repealed entirely to further develop a conducive environment for people to freely speak about corruption and abuse of power.
END OF STATEMENT
Issued by:
Center to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4 Center)
For further enquiries, please contact:
c4center@gmail.com
019-216 6218
