Since Malaysia has been shaken by the bold revelation of Mohd Asri Hamid or better known as Asri Janggut on the gambling issue in Sg Buloh as well as smuggling cigarette sales activities that are looked down upon by the authorities.
The founder of Hot Burger clearly appeared to dare to record a video of bias involving local authorities who seized the stalls of local small traders and allowed outsiders to do business including gambling shops where no action was taken.
Many describe the owner of Hot Burger is a hero because he was brave. This incident became a hot topic and got the attention of the Chief of Police who held a meeting with Asri Janggut.
According to Nor Zabetha, In Malaysia, we have the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (ACT 711). Even the name of the Protection Act and it is clear under this Act there are many, sections that provide protection to informants
Does this informant in Malaysia have a law that protects? We all wonder about Abang Burger’s case, what is the position of the informant.
This case may be an example to others of the issue of the extent to which the informant is protected.
Everyone wants to know. In Malaysia we have the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (ACT 711). Even the name of the Protection Act and it is clear under this Act there are many, sections that provide protection to informants. For example:
Part III of the Act, all matters relating to the protection of whistleblowers.
Section 7, Information whistleblower protection.
Section 8, protection of confidential information provided.
Section 9, immunity from civil and criminal acts. Much more.
Like if we read Act 711, we believe that our position as a informant is protected.
BUT not really, because there are cases in court that are decided when the informant fails to meet the elements and conditions under this Act, then the informant is not eligible for protection.
What are the conditions and not the conditions to get this protection? What are the requirements to be a whistleblower who is eligible to be covered under this Act?
This one I will refer to the case of Rokiah Mhd Noor v. Minister of Domestic Trade & Consumer Cooperatives Malaysia & others [2016] 8 CLJ 635.
In this case, the Plaintiff who is the Chief Executive Officer (Operations) of the Companies Commission of Malaysia (‘SSM’) and another have been charged with jointly composing a letter to a third party including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who are rude and contain allegations. which is detrimental to SSM.
As a result, both of them were disciplined and Rokiah terminated her service contract. Therefore, Rokiah brought this case to court for judicial review to quash the decision of disciplinary action and termination of contract against him and to apply protection under Section 10 which is Protection against harmful action.
The court decided to dismiss Rokiah’s appeal, (meaning she did not succeed in defending the protection under Act 711), on the grounds that Rokiah failed to qualify as a whistleblower under Act 711. Here is the sentence that the court decided to use: (4) To obtain protection under APPM, a person who reveals improper conduct must make such disclosure only to any enforcement agency and not to another person.
In this case, Rokiah and another did not qualify as informants because apart from exposing the misconduct of SSM members and the Anti-Corruption Commission, the disclosure was also made to a third party and none of them were ‘enforcement agencies’ within the meaning of Section 2 of Act 711 .
As both Rokiah and Azryain do not qualify as informants in the sense of APPM, they are not entitled to protection under Section 10 of Act 711 This means that based on this case, one must provide information to the enforcement agency and not to another party.
For example, if a person discloses inappropriate behavior to any enforcement agency (Section 6), the informant must make a complaint to the enforcement such as ministries, departments, agencies or bodies accused by the federal government, police and everything that falls under the definition of Section 2.
Eligible for protection under this Act 711. In fact Seskyen 11 provides that the revocation of protection for the informant, among which he himself is involved in reported bad activities or false or trivial reports and others. So for us to compare with this case of Abang Burger, his disclosure report was made in video for public viewing.
Clearly, he cannot use protection under Act 711 because the exposure made by him is no longer to bodies such as MACC, PDRM, MBSA but to the public. I am writing this in the context of existing law. I personally condemn corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity.
May our country be free from this act of corruption. Many commit corruption because they think that if they are good at hiding, their deeds are unknown but they forget God and the paradise of hell is true.
Many also take bribes, they think later they can repent when they are old but they forget that death does not know age. Tomorrow I will share whether or not we can sue the enforcement authorities for failing to take action against corruption. I refer to the court case as well.
By Nor Zabetha
Sources: Nor Zabetha