You are on page 1of 2


The main issues of this Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPA) that have

been highlighted are this act is too weak to protect the public or the whistleblower.

There are several articles on the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 which allegedly

ineffective in protecting whistleblowers. This is due to the whistleblower will not be

covered if the disclosure of information contrary to any written law. To overcome the

problem arises, the government is preparing measures for improvement rumored to

move the special unit that monitors the integrity of the officials of the law enforcement

agencies to other bodies. In other words, the unit will be placed under one roof with

regulatory authority by the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC). If this

happens, EAIC is likely to be more systematic and effective as the body has no internal

interest in the enforcement agency. Part of that, following the Whistleblower Protection

Act of 2010, several organizations have adopted a Whistleblower Policy in their

respective organizations, particularly among GLCs such as Petroleum Nasional

Berhad (PETRONAS) and Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) also on the government

such as MARA and FELDA. In PETRONAS, this policy is to provide an avenue for all

employees and members of the public to disclose any improper conduct in accordance

with the procedures as provided for under this policy and to provide protection for

employees and members of the public who report such allegations. A whistleblower

will be accorded with protection of confidentiality of identity, to the extent reasonably

practicable. In addition, an employee who whistleblows internally will also be protected

against any adverse and detrimental actions for disclosing any improper conduct

committed or about to be committed within PETRONAS, to the extent reasonably

practicable, provided that the disclosure is made in good faith. Such protection is

accorded even if the investigation later reveals that the whistleblower is mistaken as
to the facts and the rules and procedures involved. More than that, Former civil servant

group (G25) recommended that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)

be an independent institution without the control of the minister. G25 Advisor, Tan Sri

Mohd Sheriff Mohd Kassim, said that the body's reform should be implemented so that

the MACC can effectively combat corruption. The G25 party recommended that the

MACC be an independent body without having to report to the Prime Minister's

Department or not being controlled by any minister and being accountable to

Parliament. Therefore, they propose that Parliament establish a responsible

committee in safeguarding integrity and transparency in the administration of

government. It is important to ensure there is 'check and balance' besides avoiding

abuse of power. The Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir stated that The Malaysian Anti-

Corruption Commission (MACC) will be an independent body not under the National

Integrity and Anti-Corruption Governance Center (GIACC). The Prime Minister won’t

have a say and the government can’t punish, fire or demote any officer in the auditor-

general’s department. The auditor-general would be made answerable to Parliament,

while a parliamentary select committee (PSC) would oversee the appointment of the

MACC chief commissioner after evaluation by independent stakeholders. This

reformation is to reduce room for corruption,