Parliament: Whistleblower Protection Amendment Bill 2010

On 22^nd July, I delivered the following speech on the amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. The speech was delivered in Bahasa Malaysia and I have translated it to English below. It deals with a very crucial Reformasi agenda, to better protect whistleblowers so that we can better fight corruption and abuses of power.

1. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to debate the Whistleblower Protection Amendment Bill 2010.
2. This law was originally created 15 years ago and I still remember back then, Pakatan Harapan had a clear manifesto policy goal, which was to reform this Act and provide more protection to whistleblowers as a main pillar of our anti-corruption policy.
3. I understand that the government have had several rounds of negotiation with the Human Rights, Elections and Reforms Committee (JKPK) led by YB Selayang. I believe that he and JKPK members were sincere and diligent in trying to ensure that this amendment before us, is the best version reflecting the will and reform aspirations of the people.
4. Alas, when I examine this bill, it is very disappointing. It does seem to be much lighter on the reform aspects and is not substantive at all. I understand that our government is a unity government, a coalition government, and if we want to pursue substantive reforms, the cabinet needs to get consensus. But Mr. Speaker, after being in this Madani coalition now for 30 months, and in my many conversations with Members of Parliament from Barisan Nasional, GPS, GRS, all of them, I now consider as my good friends, I get a distinct impression that they are more ready and more open-minded to embrace reforms. There are in fact, many more samurais amongst us in this hall.
5. In my humble opinion, there are three main policy issues to help protect better whistleblowers. Firstly, whistleblowers should be given the option to make complaints to other bodies, not just to the MACC, the police or other government authorities. Most if not all corruption involves the authorities, what will happen to the whistleblowers’ complaints, if the very same authorities, choose not to take action? What I want to propose, is that whistleblowers can and should be able to forward complaints to other non-governmental parties.

6. In more advanced democratic countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Sweden, whistleblowers have the option to make complaints to the media. Surely, this is a much-needed amendment for Malaysia. If we had laws to protect whistleblowers who are able to make complaints to the media, we could have nipped the world’s largest corruption case, 1MDB, in the bud before it became a multi-billion problem.

11. Secondly, the issue of the OSA – the Official Secrets Act. Protection for whistleblowers should also be given to the disclosure of corruption or abuse of power even if the matter is under the OSA. In Malaysia, most government contracts are classified as official secrets and that practice enables corruption to fester. Empowering whistleblowers to overcome the draconian OSA is thus essential, as the greater public good must prevail.
12. Thirdly, the regulatory body that protects whistleblowers should be independent and not under the control of the Executive. That body should be accountable to Parliament. That body should also be akin to the Ombudsman in other more advanced democracies.
13. These three basic but fundamental reform policy issues are completely missing in this bill before us. I am not objecting to this Bill, I just want to say this to the government; you have to do more!
14. Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, I do have a few questions specific to the content of this watered-down bill. Firstly, regarding the proposed Whistleblower Protection Committee. The bill states that it will have a chairman and seven members, but all of them are appointed by the minister. I would like to suggest that the minister appoints a majority of four individuals, and the other three members be reserved for a respected anti-corruption academia, a member from the Bar Council, and a member from a respected NGO. Can’t we do that? If the government really wants to create a good Whistleblower Protection Committee, it cannot monopolise the entire committee composition. It looks bad on a government that claims to have a Madani reform agenda.
15. Secondly, what is the scope of work of this new committee? The bill reads, to oversee implementation and to obtain statistics and data. This seems very little and limited in scope. Wouldn’t it be better if this committee are given powers to draft guidelines and then has disciplinary powers to enforce the protection of whistleblowers? I ask that my own Madani government to please accept my sincere suggestion. I am not anti-government, but we, our ministers need to do better.
16. Thirdly, I want the minister to state whether this bill and this committee is a mere interim measure or not. In my conversations with YB Selayang, he informed me that the government assured him that this bill is an interim measure and there will be a better and bigger plan to introduce a comprehensive Ombudsman system. That system will be tabled to Parliament in a year or two. So, I would like to hear from the minister herself, can she give an undertaking to Parliament now that the government will pursue an Ombudsman system that will include a broader and more effective Whistleblower Protection Act.
17. Mr. Speaker, I end my speech. I hope that later at the committee stage we will debate the issue regarding the definition of the word “willfully” and that we will amend it and also the last-minute amendment document. In general, I support this bill, but I urge my own government again, you have to do better, and please do better for the sake of Reformasi.