Police have been urged to investigate the complaint, not shoot the messenger.
PETALING JAYA: An NGO has urged the police to investigate the complaint made by R. Sri Sanjeevan, the chief of MyWatch, and not to “shoot” him down.
The Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism(C4) director Cynthia Gabriel said it is important not to criminalise but to protect the whistleblower.
“We are deeply concerned that Sanjeevan will receive zero protection from the very laws designed to combat corruption,” she said in a statement adding that the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) 2010 also does not protect Sanjeevan.
“The WPA’s goal is to give protection to the whistleblower in the form of confidentiality of their information, immunity from civil and criminal action and protection from detrimental action being taken against them,” she said.
“Yet Sanjeevan can tell you that he has enjoyed none of these,” she said. “Whistleblowing is indeed a hazardous venture in Malaysia.”
Government corruption has gained the wrath of citizens over the last few years, she added.
“In a rapidly changing political landscape, many people have been goaded into blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, misconduct and alleged corruption,” she said.
“And yet, protection is scant, government harassment aplenty, personal securities are compromised,” she said. “If past records are anything to go by, the messenger also gets shot at.”
The complaints also gets swept under the rug, and even worse the suspect roams free, she said summing up today’s reality for whistleblowers.
“Sanjeevan can surely testify to all these,” she said.
“This one man has single handedly returned from the dead to slit open alleged corruption in the police force with even more obsessive zeal,” she said praising the valiant acts of Sanjeevan.
Sanjeevan’s latest wrangle with the police is over sex allegations involving a top cop.
The expose is expected to send shock waves through the police force.
“Sanjeevan has refused to handover evidence and has sought assurances from the Home Minister and the Prime Minister that action will be taken,” Cynthia said.
“He expects the alleged perpetrator to be suspended, and that a thorough investigation is carried out. But no such assurance is forthcoming,” she added.
Instead, the police have obtained a court order to compel Sanjeevan to hand over evidence within 14 days to facilitate investigations under Section 509 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA).
“C4 is deeply concerned that Sanjeevan will receive zero protection from the very laws designed to combat corruption,” she said.
Under the WPA, a whistleblower does not enjoy any protection if he decides to communicate his allegation of wrongdoing to a person other than a government enforcement agency.
It is a further offence punishable by a fine of up to RM50,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years if a whistleblower or the person receiving or investigating the report discloses any information about the person accused of wrongdoing, or any other information disclosed by the whistleblower, to a third party.
In contrast, under the New South Wales Public Interest Disclosure Act, if no action is taken by the enforcement agencies, a whistleblower will be protected if he brings the matter to the attention of a Member of Parliament or the media.
“What hope can whistleblowers like Sanjeevan have in gaining protection from the law and lending trust with our public institutions?” Cynthia said.
“C4 strongly recommends that the WPA is revisited and scrutinised again by the lawmakers with inputs from the Bar Council to ensure that public interest disclosure is protected at all times,” she said.
The Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism(C4) director Cynthia Gabriel said it is important not to criminalise but to protect the whistleblower.
“We are deeply concerned that Sanjeevan will receive zero protection from the very laws designed to combat corruption,” she said in a statement adding that the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) 2010 also does not protect Sanjeevan.
“The WPA’s goal is to give protection to the whistleblower in the form of confidentiality of their information, immunity from civil and criminal action and protection from detrimental action being taken against them,” she said.
“Yet Sanjeevan can tell you that he has enjoyed none of these,” she said. “Whistleblowing is indeed a hazardous venture in Malaysia.”
Government corruption has gained the wrath of citizens over the last few years, she added.
“In a rapidly changing political landscape, many people have been goaded into blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, misconduct and alleged corruption,” she said.
“And yet, protection is scant, government harassment aplenty, personal securities are compromised,” she said. “If past records are anything to go by, the messenger also gets shot at.”
The complaints also gets swept under the rug, and even worse the suspect roams free, she said summing up today’s reality for whistleblowers.
“Sanjeevan can surely testify to all these,” she said.
“This one man has single handedly returned from the dead to slit open alleged corruption in the police force with even more obsessive zeal,” she said praising the valiant acts of Sanjeevan.
Sanjeevan’s latest wrangle with the police is over sex allegations involving a top cop.
The expose is expected to send shock waves through the police force.
“Sanjeevan has refused to handover evidence and has sought assurances from the Home Minister and the Prime Minister that action will be taken,” Cynthia said.
“He expects the alleged perpetrator to be suspended, and that a thorough investigation is carried out. But no such assurance is forthcoming,” she added.
Instead, the police have obtained a court order to compel Sanjeevan to hand over evidence within 14 days to facilitate investigations under Section 509 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA).
“C4 is deeply concerned that Sanjeevan will receive zero protection from the very laws designed to combat corruption,” she said.
Under the WPA, a whistleblower does not enjoy any protection if he decides to communicate his allegation of wrongdoing to a person other than a government enforcement agency.
It is a further offence punishable by a fine of up to RM50,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years if a whistleblower or the person receiving or investigating the report discloses any information about the person accused of wrongdoing, or any other information disclosed by the whistleblower, to a third party.
In contrast, under the New South Wales Public Interest Disclosure Act, if no action is taken by the enforcement agencies, a whistleblower will be protected if he brings the matter to the attention of a Member of Parliament or the media.
“What hope can whistleblowers like Sanjeevan have in gaining protection from the law and lending trust with our public institutions?” Cynthia said.
“C4 strongly recommends that the WPA is revisited and scrutinised again by the lawmakers with inputs from the Bar Council to ensure that public interest disclosure is protected at all times,” she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment