rocky's bru

rocky's bru

Whistleblower Protection Act: Don't Let it be Misunderstood

Posted: 07 Aug 2012 03:22 AM PDT


Notes: The sender of this letter says the on-going case involving Rafizi Ramli vis-a-vis the National Feedlot Centre (NFCorp) issue should not deter Malaysians from blowing the whistle on wrong-doers because the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 [Act 711] does provide safeguards ... "The whistleblower protection mechanism in the Act clearly states the types of disclosures that can be made, to whom it's to be made to, how one qualifies for whistleblower protection and how he may lose it, its enforcement procedures, acts which amount to offences and their penalties. It's all there, all clear. Nothing hidden, no diabolical plan behind it."


Dear Rocky,
Good intentions are always misunderstood, especially if one already has prejudices clouding their minds, and opposes every good intention of the Government. Any new idea or policy introduced is more often than not met with sneers, ridicule and straight-out criticism –everything is seen as a tool for the Government to close its ranks and protect its own.

The aim of the Whistleblower Protection Act, even before it came into being, has always been very clear  - to protect those disclosing information on wrongdoings from being victimized for making the disclosure. The protection is extended indiscriminately to every citizen from every walk of life, be it in the public or private sector, so long as the disclosure is made in accordance with the mechanism encapsulated within the Act. The way this Act works is the same way in which other whistleblower legislation works in countries that have long provided for whistleblower protection, which, incidentally, were referred to in drafting the Malaysian legislation.

The whistleblower protection mechanism in the Act clearly states the types of disclosures that can be made, to whom it's to be made to, how one qualifies for whistleblower protection and how he may lose it, its enforcement procedures, acts which amount to offences and their penalties. It's all there, all clear. Nothing hidden, no diabolical plan behind it.

Unfortunately, when one is blinded by his misconceptions and prejudices, he chooses to see only what he wants to see and believes only what he wants to believe. Had it been any Tom, Dick or Rafizi who did the "whistleblowing" and the misconduct disclosed of not connected to some former Cabinet Minister, things would probably not turned out the way it did. However, with the players in this little tale being who they are and what they represent, fingers were automatically pointed and accusations hurled without anyone bothering to do a little homework before putting their foots into their mouths.

Graphic by Beruang Biru
Yes, our dear Mr. Rafizi blew the whistle. Is he a whistleblower within the textbook definition of "whistleblower", then? Not quite, as most dictionaries define a whistleblower as an employee who reports of employer misconduct. Is Mr. Rafizi an employee of NFCorp? That fact is very much doubted. The kind people who drafted the Malaysian legislation didn't want to be confined to the textbook meaning of whistleblower and instead broadened it to be any person who makes a disclosure of improper conduct. Does this make Mr. Rafizi a Malaysian whistleblower, then? Not quite either. Read the definition of whistleblower in section 2 of the Act and the magic words "to the enforcement agency" towards the end of the sentence gives you the answer. Unless the two people that he disclosed the information to can, by any stretch of the imagination, fall within the meaning of "enforcement agency" also found under section 2, then our dear Mr. Rafizi is also sadly denied the title of Malaysian whistleblower. If he can't even whistle blow the Malaysian way, how can he be protected?

If he's not a textbook whistleblower and he's not a Malaysian whistleblower, who is he then? A good Samaritan intending to put right the wrong that has long been going on without any slightest consideration to protect or spare his informer, a person described as any other person named in the disclosure of improper conduct who would suffer any risk or loss if his identity is disclosed as described in the definition of "a whistleblower" in Act 711, or a person with a hidden agenda who is not above using unscrupulous means to achieve that agenda? It's for the court to decide. Either way, with the manner and clouded intent in which he made the disclosure, he does not deserve whistleblower protection legally or otherwise. 
Thank you.

Why Anwar's camp is so against George Kent getting that LRT project

Posted: 07 Aug 2012 01:27 AM PDT

Jebat Must Die really should blog more often. Known for his painstaking research and sharp perspectives, this anonymous blogger has made it his mission to expose the half-truths plaguing the more serious parts of Malaysia's blogsphere, where politicians and their machais lurk and conspire to fool some of us and, sometimes, all of us.

His latest posting Anwar Ibrahim's LRT Project is a fine example of what JMD does best. Malaysia Today has a link, with these telling excerpts:


Note to readers: Please leave comments at JMD's H E R E.

DAP's Manomoron says sorry to Lee Chong Wei and family ..

Posted: 07 Aug 2012 03:26 AM PDT


The DAP, not just Mano, owes the people, and not just LCW and family, an apology. Lim Guan Eng and daddy seemed to think it's enough for them to distance themselves and the party from M. Manoharan's "grossly insensitive remarks" (Guan Eng's words) about Lee Chong Wei and how "Malaysia will win an Olympic gold medal after Pakatan Rakyat takes over Putrajaya". 

Guan Eng said that Mano, the Hindraf man from DAP, "does not represent DAP" (funny, Mano is DAP state assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah). Guan Eng also pledged RM100,000 (not his) to Lee Chong Wei for his silver medal at the London Olympics.

Lim Kit Siang is also on damage control overdrive mode. He wants the Federal government to make LCW Malaysian Sportsman of the Decade and said Manoharan will apologize for his stupid remarks (in what The Malaysian Insider describes as an attempt "designed to control the fallout from Manoharan's remarks". Read h e r e.

Kit Siang's wish is a command to Mano, so the mo had to say sorry. (Either that, or Kit Siang must have told Mano he won't be dropped from PRU13 if he quickly and deeeeply apologize! Mano, many know, was already on the way out for his performance since getting elected in March 2008).

Hence, the "deeply regret" and "heartfelt apologies" to Lee Chong Wei and his family, about an hour ago.


Kit Siang and Guan Eng can make Mano apologize because they are his boss.

But this is not just about Lee Chong Wei and his family.

Mano's grossly insensitive remarks hurt millions of Malaysians that night, not just LCW. Mano, flanked by Guan Eng and Kit Siang, must apologize to those people. 

The Sun pic: Supporters give LCW a hero's reception at KLIA this morning

One hundred thousand ringgit doesn't suddenly make it right. Some may even view it as an attempt to bribe!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jom berjuang bersama rakan bloggers di Facebook!

Tunjukkan sokongan anda! Sila Like.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...