Is The Whistleblower In The Azam Baki Case A Whistleblower? as a start to my post on 'whistleblowing', wakakaka - OK, RPK wrote:
In June 2008, I received information from one of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s people, Nik Azmi a.k.a. Bul, regarding the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder. This was supposed to have come from a confidential report done by the Military Intelligence and which involved two senior army officers.
I then signed a Statutory Declaration, which I sent to the police officer who was investigating the murder. Basically, it was a confidential police report made in the form of a Statutory Declaration informing the police what I was told and urging the police to investigate the authenticity of this report. I then named all the people allegedly involved, as I had been informed.
The truth is I made no allegation against anyone. I only mentioned what I was informed about this incident and that I leave it to the police to verify the truth or falsity of the matter.
What happened next was most unexpected. An Umno blogger by the name of ‘Big Dog’ published my Statutory Declaration. How did he get a copy? It seems the Special Branch (his neighbour) gave him the copy and asked him to publish it.
The IGP then announced he had heard about my Statutory Declaration, but had not seen it yet, and added that I had made a false allegation. How did the IGP know if he had not seen it yet?
Who counts as a whistleblower and who doesn’t
The law does not cover those who openly disclose information in public, for instance to the media and on social media platforms.
It is easy to assume that the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 protects anyone who discloses information of alleged wrongdoings or the irregular actions of a person or persons in a company or an organisation.
The spirit of the whistleblowing protection law lies in the protection of someone who discloses information of irregularity, be it corruption or improper conduct in the public and private sector, that may invite a backlash while the information is being investigated.
However, the scope of the act only covers persons who makes a complaint to the relevant enforcement agencies which includes any ministry department, agency or body of the government including local authorities.
The immediate protection is the confidentiality of the identity of the person, which includes his or her name, address and place of work.
Secondly, he will be provided immunity from civil and criminal action, and thirdly, protection against detrimental action. Detrimental action may mean disciplinary action or prosecution of the person against whom the disclosure of improper conduct has been made.
However, the law does not cover those who openly disclose information in public, for instance to the media and on social media platforms. In the case of Lalitha Kunaratnam, she cannot claim whistleblower status based on several criteria.
She wrote two articles, “Business Ties Among MACC Leadership: How Deep Does it Go?” (Part 1 and 2), based on information she got from publicly available sources (shares on past annual reports) and using that, she insinuated wrongdoing and collusion on the part o- several high ranking MACC officers.
Firstly, she does not come under the whistleblower protection simply because her identity is already willingly revealed.
Secondly, a whistleblower is usually someone employed within an organization who exposes the wrongdoing in that body and fears backlash from the employers or authorities.
Thirdly, the disclosure is blasted out on social media where anyone can have access. She did not make a complaint to the relevant enforcement authorities where her identity would be automatically protected to prevent detrimental action from those affected by the disclosure of the information. Detrimental action can come in the form of lawsuits or even bodily harm that may or may not be directly proven to be connected to the disclosure.
Hence, the particular law in question does not provide that guarantee of protection if the complainant has exposed his or her own identity along with the information, simply because the source of backlash can come from anywhere and anyone.
Finally, the article is an insinuation of “business ties among MACC leadership” based on publicly available information, i.e, the shares of Azam Baki.
I then signed a Statutory Declaration, which I sent to the police officer who was investigating the murder. Basically, it was a confidential police report made in the form of a Statutory Declaration informing the police what I was told and urging the police to investigate the authenticity of this report. I then named all the people allegedly involved, as I had been informed.
The truth is I made no allegation against anyone. I only mentioned what I was informed about this incident and that I leave it to the police to verify the truth or falsity of the matter.
What happened next was most unexpected. An Umno blogger by the name of ‘Big Dog’ published my Statutory Declaration. How did he get a copy? It seems the Special Branch (his neighbour) gave him the copy and asked him to publish it.
The IGP then announced he had heard about my Statutory Declaration, but had not seen it yet, and added that I had made a false allegation. How did the IGP know if he had not seen it yet?
The Attorney-General then announced that action was going to be taken against me and that I was going to be charged for making a false allegation in my Statutory Declaration. How did the AG know if no investigation had been launched yet?
First of all, I made no allegation against anyone. I just said I was told about a certain matter and asked the police to investigate the story I was told.
Secondly, it was a confidential report to the police. Aren’t whistleblowers protected?
The point is, since the Umno blogger ‘Big Dog’ had published my Statutory Declaration on his blog, it was no longer a confidential report and hence I was no longer protected as a whistleblower.
The fact that I did not give Big Dog a copy of my Statutory Declaration and that he received it from the Special Branch was ignored. Hence, I did not publish it, but it was illegally published without my consent.
Furthermore, I did not allege anything. The allegation came from a Military Intelligence officer, and I mentioned that in my Statutory Declaration. Nevertheless, I was arrested and charged for making a false allegation that I never made.
The issue here is that my Statutory Declaration was no longer private and confidential but had been published (illegally, may I add). And that was why I was arrested and charged.
And this is the crux of the Lalitha Kunaratnam accusation against MACC’s Azam Baki. She is not a whistleblower because she did not lodge a confidential report to the MACC but published two articles. Hence, she cannot claim whistleblower status. She is merely a journalist who published a story without the backing of evidence. And that is how she will be treated by the law.
OK everyone? Wakakaka. But let me get one item in RPK's post out of the way before I continue my 'whistleblower' piece, that of 'Military Intelligence' being the alleged source of what RPK wrote in his now well-known SD.
In my admittedly limited knowledge about the military, save what have been made known to me by my many uncles who served in the Malayan-Malaysian Armed Forces and Police (yes, we have been a uniform-dominant Chinese family, wakakaka, and I would dare say, thus far more loyal to the nation than Mahathir has been, wakakaka again), the military intelligence would usually stick to military issues and at worse, non-military issues that would likely impact on the military.
Secondly, it was a confidential report to the police. Aren’t whistleblowers protected?
The point is, since the Umno blogger ‘Big Dog’ had published my Statutory Declaration on his blog, it was no longer a confidential report and hence I was no longer protected as a whistleblower.
The fact that I did not give Big Dog a copy of my Statutory Declaration and that he received it from the Special Branch was ignored. Hence, I did not publish it, but it was illegally published without my consent.
Furthermore, I did not allege anything. The allegation came from a Military Intelligence officer, and I mentioned that in my Statutory Declaration. Nevertheless, I was arrested and charged for making a false allegation that I never made.
The issue here is that my Statutory Declaration was no longer private and confidential but had been published (illegally, may I add). And that was why I was arrested and charged.
And this is the crux of the Lalitha Kunaratnam accusation against MACC’s Azam Baki. She is not a whistleblower because she did not lodge a confidential report to the MACC but published two articles. Hence, she cannot claim whistleblower status. She is merely a journalist who published a story without the backing of evidence. And that is how she will be treated by the law.
OK everyone? Wakakaka. But let me get one item in RPK's post out of the way before I continue my 'whistleblower' piece, that of 'Military Intelligence' being the alleged source of what RPK wrote in his now well-known SD.
In my admittedly limited knowledge about the military, save what have been made known to me by my many uncles who served in the Malayan-Malaysian Armed Forces and Police (yes, we have been a uniform-dominant Chinese family, wakakaka, and I would dare say, thus far more loyal to the nation than Mahathir has been, wakakaka again), the military intelligence would usually stick to military issues and at worse, non-military issues that would likely impact on the military.
Our military not unlike the military of the British Commonwealth nations are Apolitical (or NOT political) and would not have been interested in stuff like the Altantuyaa Murder (which was in essence a criminal case of most likely an opportunistic rape-then murder tragedy BUT turned into a political drama by political Machiavellianism).
OK, that wee niggling issue being dealt with by yours truly, let's return back to whistleblowing - RPK has NOT been entirely wrong in saying one would not be a whistleblower unless one FIRST reports the issue to a recognised authority for action, and not spread the matter like juicy gossip in the media. But let's move on further and see ...
According to the dictionary, a whistleblower is (usually though not necessary) an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency.
OK, that wee niggling issue being dealt with by yours truly, let's return back to whistleblowing - RPK has NOT been entirely wrong in saying one would not be a whistleblower unless one FIRST reports the issue to a recognised authority for action, and not spread the matter like juicy gossip in the media. But let's move on further and see ...
According to the dictionary, a whistleblower is (usually though not necessary) an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency.
Now let's examine a recent article by Malaysia Now, as follows:
Who counts as a whistleblower and who doesn’t
The law does not cover those who openly disclose information in public, for instance to the media and on social media platforms.
It is easy to assume that the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 protects anyone who discloses information of alleged wrongdoings or the irregular actions of a person or persons in a company or an organisation.
The spirit of the whistleblowing protection law lies in the protection of someone who discloses information of irregularity, be it corruption or improper conduct in the public and private sector, that may invite a backlash while the information is being investigated.
However, the scope of the act only covers persons who makes a complaint to the relevant enforcement agencies which includes any ministry department, agency or body of the government including local authorities.
The immediate protection is the confidentiality of the identity of the person, which includes his or her name, address and place of work.
Secondly, he will be provided immunity from civil and criminal action, and thirdly, protection against detrimental action. Detrimental action may mean disciplinary action or prosecution of the person against whom the disclosure of improper conduct has been made.
However, the law does not cover those who openly disclose information in public, for instance to the media and on social media platforms. In the case of Lalitha Kunaratnam, she cannot claim whistleblower status based on several criteria.
She wrote two articles, “Business Ties Among MACC Leadership: How Deep Does it Go?” (Part 1 and 2), based on information she got from publicly available sources (shares on past annual reports) and using that, she insinuated wrongdoing and collusion on the part o- several high ranking MACC officers.
Firstly, she does not come under the whistleblower protection simply because her identity is already willingly revealed.
Secondly, a whistleblower is usually someone employed within an organization who exposes the wrongdoing in that body and fears backlash from the employers or authorities.
Thirdly, the disclosure is blasted out on social media where anyone can have access. She did not make a complaint to the relevant enforcement authorities where her identity would be automatically protected to prevent detrimental action from those affected by the disclosure of the information. Detrimental action can come in the form of lawsuits or even bodily harm that may or may not be directly proven to be connected to the disclosure.
Hence, the particular law in question does not provide that guarantee of protection if the complainant has exposed his or her own identity along with the information, simply because the source of backlash can come from anywhere and anyone.
Finally, the article is an insinuation of “business ties among MACC leadership” based on publicly available information, i.e, the shares of Azam Baki.
In accordance with the law, the person who is aggrieved by her article has the legal and constitutional right to file a civil suit for defamation to protect his reputation. The Defamation Act 1957 provides the guidelines for determining what is and what is not defamatory where the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the statements were untrue, and had imputed a “dishonourable or discreditable conduct” on the part of the plaintiff.
In the case of Azam filing a civil suit against Lalitha, he has every right to do so under the law.
In the case of Azam filing a civil suit against Lalitha, he has every right to do so under the law.
But there are more clauses and sub clauses under the Whistleblower Act, which no doubt the defence lawyers will work on. Thus will Lalitha Kunaratnam be still termed a whistleblower?
Whistleblowing provides her with a righteous crusading sheen which may yet work to her advantage.
Whistleblowing provides her with a righteous crusading sheen which may yet work to her advantage.
But the World has seen/heard from far more famous or notorious whistleblowers like Julian Assange (Wiki Leak fame), Edward Joseph Snowden (for revealing numerous US covert global surveillance programs, many run by the NSA and the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance) and much much earlier, Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers).
Wakakakaka…
ReplyDeleteA known liar using an anmokausai political dogma to fart about the rules of a country he chose to cabut!
What he has farted about is just hindsight of the nth order. Every Tom Dick & Harry of the western front could do that, within their hypocritical environment.
But in bolihland?
He must have forgotten how bolihland is been established & been governed by who!
Just a piece of trash, not even worth the rubbish bin!
You only know whistle-blowers from societies that have relatively open systems.
ReplyDeleteA superficial reader like you then jumps to conclusion that USA is rotten.
People in China or USSR/Russia who try to expose wrong doings in their country end up with a bullet in the Head in some prison courtyard.
A superficial reader like you then concludes that those societies are wonderful, because nothing negative ever comes put about the regimes.
Moronic rant of know-nothingness!
Delete"whistle-blowers from societies that have relatively open systems"
Mfer, what happened to Julian Assange? Edward Snowdon? Ain't they whistleblowers persecuted by yr 'so so open' society?
What happened to whistle-blowers from societies like China?
Obviously u know fart, AGAIN.
Remember Dr Li Wenliang, who was promoted as a whistleblower of the Wuhan covid endemic by the western 'free' press?
He was not the first person to make the report. & yet he was made a martyr of the demoNcratic west!
Was he, as u claimed, been having a bullet in the head in some prison courtyard?
A superficial reader!
Ha… ha… u do want to play with yr f*cked fluid England!
How superficial can u be when u ONLY quoted news sources from yr favourite outlets, with many of yr ketchup additions?
Besides, u have NO a single trace of footstep in China proper! Neither can u read Mandarin press reports!
Even if when u have partook to read some mainland social media parades, u would have an ounce of impression that how outrageously open r those comments that r critical of the governing bodies.
"nothing negative ever comes put about the regimes"
Wow… wow…
Have u read about those unfortunate miscarriages & hemorrhagic stroke death happened in Xi'an within the hospitals during the recent chaotic pandemic lockdown?
The torrents of critical complaints in the social media would have retreated yr head into that hole that the sun doesn't shine!
Ooop… my bad - trying to educate a banana who loathes its skin.