November 06, 2020 (PN)
Experts have identified that the current Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) 2010 is in urgent need of reform so as to increase reporting and public confidence.
Amendments proposed include widening the legal definition of a whistleblower.
The current ambit of the term whistleblower is severely restricted by S11 of the WPA, which denies protection for reasons such as the whistleblower’s participation in the improper conduct disclosed.
Given the nature of whistleblowing and the need for the whistleblower to be aware of any mischief, there would be an overlap between the whistleblower’s role as a “participant” and an informant, thus subjecting the person to revocation of protection accorded under Section 7 of the WPA.
Other amendments also include improving the procedural defect in the reporting process.
Currently, reports going to internal compliance units as opposed to an official authority, are left without protection.
Whistleblowers may also find themselves having to weigh their risks between the possibility of revocation of protection from the MACC, and matters pertaining to their employment agreement that emphasised non-disclosure policies, if any, should they take on the path of being a whistleblower.
(see S6,S8 WPA; see also Rokiah Mohd Noor v MPDNKKM & Ors and Another Appeal (2016) 8CLJ 635, where whistleblowers were denied protection as they had not made the disclosure to an enforcement agency)
Related news:
Whistleblower protection: Widen the scope, provide security to informants