Legal framework for whistleblowers too rigid, says integrity institute chief [WATCH]

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Institute of Integrity (IIM) believes that the current legal framework governing whistleblowers is too rigid to protect informants effectively, and that a realistic and robust system is long overdue.

IIM president and chief executive officer Datuk Ahmad Ramdzan Daud said more safeguards are needed to protect those who dare to expose wrongdoing from within.

“Who would willingly come forward with information about a syndicate if their own life is at serious risk?” he said.

Ramdzan, a former Special Branch director, said the legal requirements should not discourage the very people the system needed to come forward.

The current internal systems, particularly supervisory roles and structural vulnerabilities, must be reviewed, he said.

Ramdzan, who is also the former Special Branch director, said whistleblowers aren’t created overnight.

“A person working inside a syndicate, for example, has likely been involved in its activities for some time. It’s not as simple as someone working today and turning into a whistleblower tomorrow. They’ve likely thought long and hard about the risks involved.

“If they’re willing to come forward, then we have to ask: what can we offer them? And more importantly, is that offer worth the risk in their eyes? They know that the moment they blow the whistle, their identity is essentially exposed. They become a target. And that’s where we step in — to offer protection and support.”

Ramdzan’s statement comes as the government is pressing ahead with reforms to the Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Bill 2025, which were passed in the Dewan Rakyat last month.

Some of the amendments were expanding reporting channels and including the possibility of allowing disclosures to parties other than enforcement agencies, with the aim of encouraging more whistleblowers to come forward without fear.

Civil society organisations and politicians have called for more changes, such as protection for disclosures made in good faith to the media, and for whistleblowers who may have been complicit but are key to exposing systemic abuse.

Under the current law, protection is only extended when disclosures are made to enforcement agencies, such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

Public disclosures — including to the media — are excluded, and whistleblower protection may be revoked if the informant is found to be involved in the offence.

Ramdzan said formalising a “risk-and-reward” mechanism waskey to effective deterrence and could help address the limitations of the existing Whistleblower Protection Act 2010.

He said whistleblowers who help prevent significant financial losses should be fairly compensated.

“If we manage to prevent the leakage of RM1 million in subsidised goods, is it unreasonable to suggest that 10 or 15 per cent go to the informant?” he said.

He said a certificate of appreciation carries little weight and informants who provide information leading to major busts should receive meaningful rewards.

However, he cautioned that whistleblowing must not be driven purely by personal gain.

“If every case involving money turns into a reward opportunity, we risk losing control,” he said. “If someone comes forward out of revenge, such as failing to secure a contract, they are an offender too. Integrity must exist even in the whistleblower,” he added.

© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd

Source link