Tuesday, November 12, 2024

C4 calls out elected reps for silence on assemblymen bribery case

FMT:


C4 calls out elected reps

for silence on assemblymen

bribery case

-

The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism says this is the ‘exact opportunity’ for elected officials to ‘reform how we protect our whistleblowers’.

9
Shares
Total Views: 1,034
Free Malaysia Today
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism said the whistleblower’s case highlights the urgency for an asset declaration law to ensure politicians are held accountable.

PETALING JAYA
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) has questioned the lack of support by MPs and assemblymen for a witness in an alleged case of assemblymen discussing bribes for a project licence.

C4 lauded 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 heavily criticises the deafening silence from other MPs and assemblymen on this issue,” it said in a statement today.

It said that if the allegations were true, it exposes a critical flaw in oversight by the elected representatives.

“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,” it said.

Yesterday, Lim urged the whistleblower to reach out to him before the parliamentary session ends in mid-December.

Previously, it was reported that eight videos surfaced showing discussions between a businessman and an assemblyman of bribes for a project licence.

On Saturday, senior Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officers were reported to have met a lawyer over the alleged case, who played a 17-second audio clip for the officers in which several people were heard having a conversation about money.

MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki was quoted as saying the lawyer wanted an agreement that his client would not come under investigation. but officers disagreed as it was not in line with procedures.

Azam said MACC cannot provide written guarantee of immunity without detailed information about the alleged improper conduct.

He said the witness had been urged to file an official complaint so that he could be granted protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010.

C4 said the whistleblower’s fears were not without basis, as Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 states that the protection can be revoked if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the witness was a participant in the alleged misconduct.

“Whistleblowing is an extremely precarious task – the government cannot simply ask the whistleblower to report to an institution they do not trust,” it said.

C4 also said this incident strengthened the case for an asset declaration law to ensure politicians can be held accountable and subject to public inquiry should there be unjustified or disproportionate wealth in their possession.

Earlier, FMT published a letter by a former member of MACC’s independent operations review panel, Walter Sandosam, who stressed that those who come forward “in good faith” with information on actual or potential improper conduct are protected under the Act.

He, however, questioned the need for a written guarantee from MACC if the whistleblower is reporting a corrupt act being committed from an arm’s length.

“This could be perceived also as the informant gunning for a ‘shield of immunity’ for his own participation in this specific episode of alleged corruption,” he said, adding that the Act is not a “do not go to jail” card.

No comments:

Post a Comment