12 NOVEMBER 2024
PRESS STATEMENT
On 9 November 2024, online news portal Malaysiakini broke the news of a whistleblower who holds video recordings of at least eight assemblypersons purportedly discussing hundreds of thousands in bribes given to them in exchange for supporting a project. Since then, articles have reported that while the whistleblower’s lawyer has met with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), negotiations are ongoing to obtain whistleblower protection. An official letter has also been sent to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim requesting whistleblower protection and alleging the involvement of the state’s “top leader” in the corruption scandal. The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) is outraged by the lack of support for the whistleblower and calls for the immediate reform of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPA 2010).
The whistleblower in question has requested the MACC for a guarantee of immunity before providing all the evidence for the investigation. However, Azam Baki, Chief Commissioner of the MACC, has stated that this is not possible and has asked the whistleblower to lodge an official report with the MACC. Government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil has also called on the whistleblower to do the same.
Whistleblower concerns are valid
The whistleblower, through their lawyer, has publicly stated that they fear political and personal repercussions for the potential exposé. This is especially so as the revelations concern top politicians. Furthemore, the whistleblower has stated that they do not trust the WPA 2010 to adequately protect them.
These fears are not without basis. Section 11(1)(a) of the WPA 2010 mandates the revocation of whistleblower protection if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the whistleblower has participated in the improper conduct disclosed. Furthermore, section 11(1)(c) revokes protection if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the disclosure is made solely or substantially with the motive of avoiding dismissal or other disciplinary action.
This means that if the whistleblower is found to be part of the scandal or is mainly whistleblowing to avoid dismissal or disciplinary action, they lose their protection. This aspect of the law has been heavily criticised for limiting the scope of whistleblower protection, as it is often only individuals closely connected to the cases who have access to incriminating evidence.
Furthermore, numerous past cases have shown that following exposures of corruption and abuse of power, it is often the whistleblower themselves who become targets for harassment instead of those implicated in the case. Azam Baki himself initiated an RM10 million defamation suit against a whistleblower following revelations that he owned millions of shares in two publicly-listed companies while he was head of MACC’s investigations department. The suit was even used as one of many excuses not to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee that had summoned him to testify. In June this year, he dropped the suit without admission from either party, any order for costs, or liberty to file afresh.
It also cannot be ignored that this is a highly political issue, which raises yet more concerns for the whistleblower. The MACC is not fully independent from the executive primarily due to the fact that the Chief Commissioner’s appointment is made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister. When read with Article 40(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the role of the YDPA is a formality and the Prime Minister is entirely responsible for appointments.
This connection has raised prominent suspicions under the Anwar administration, with the Prime Minister himself having been accused of directing “selective prosecutions” against political rivals. While these claims have been denied, no independence reforms have been enacted. Thus, the lack of trust in the MACC to carry out its duties fairly persists.
These issues of potential conflicts of interest and lack of trust are particularly pertinent for the whistleblower in the present case, especially if the implicated assemblyperson are aligned with the Madani government. Whistleblowing is an extremely precarious task — the government cannot simply ask the whistleblower to report to an institution they do not trust. The immediate and vital task for the government is to rebuild the trust in the MACC through the enactment of independence reforms. This is critical for whistleblowers — especially those involved in political cases — to have confidence in the protections that will be afforded to them.
Why are politicians silent?
C4 Center lauds the efforts of Kepong MP Lim Lip Eng who has committed to sharing the evidence and names of those involved in Parliament should the whistleblower reach out to him. However, he stands in the minority in seeking the truth behind this matter. C4 Center heavily criticises the deafening silence from other MPs and assemblypersons on this issue.
If true, the scale of this corruption scandal is huge, exposing a critical flaw in oversight for elected officials. This case must be the turning point for corruption amongst parliamentarians and assemblypersons. Rumours of politicians engaging in corruption have circulated publicly for decades, destroying public trust in our democratic institutions. This is the exact opportunity for elected officials to rebuild that trust and rid our political system of corruption and reform how we protect our whistleblowers.
This pernicious scandal also reiterates the urgent need for an asset declaration law. As C4 Center has highlighted previously, this law is a crucial way in which politicians can be held accountable and be subject to public inquiry should there be unjustified or disproportionate wealth in their possession. With an asset declaration law in place, the alleged movement of hundreds of thousands of ringgit amongst the assemblypersons in this case could be easily tracked and identified and perpetrators could be brought to justice.
Critical opportunity for the government
Whistleblower protection is an integral part of good governance systems. This present case explicitly highlights the critical concerns and weaknesses surrounding the whistleblower protection framework in the country. It cannot be reiterated strongly enough that despite the massive scale of corruption purportedly proven by the whistleblower’s evidence, the focus is still put on the whistleblower and not the alleged crimes. If whistleblowers continue to be dismissed, harassed, and forced to go through “proper channels” that are insufficient, then the promise of a corruption free country by the Prime Minister and the MACC cannot be taken seriously.
Hence, C4 Center strongly urges:
- The MACC to immediately provide whistleblower protection to the whistleblower as requested.
- All MPs and assemblypersons to explicitly provide support to the whistleblower and to commit to reforms for oversight for elected officials, including an asset declaration law at Federal and State levels.
- The government to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 to ensure adequate protection is afforded to all whistleblowers.
- The government to reform the MACC by removing it from the direct influence of the Prime Minister and placing it under Parliamentary oversight. Further reforms must also be instituted regarding the appointment and removal process of the Chief Commissioner.
END OF STATEMENT
Issued by:
Center to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4 Center)
For further enquiries, please contact:
c4center@gmail.com
019-216 6218
