KUALA LUMPUR, March 7: The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) has welcomed the proposed amendments to Sections 5, 6, and 11 of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPA 2010) but says that more critical reforms were still needed to ensure a truly safe environment for whistleblowers in the fight against corruption.
On Thursday, March 6, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman tabled the Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Bill 2025 for its first reading.
The amendments proposed were:
- Section 5: The insertion of Section 5A, which stipulates the creation of a “Whistleblower Protection Committee”;
- Section 6: The removal of the proviso that disallows a whistleblower to receive protection if the disclosure is prohibited by written law;
- Section 11: Inserting the word “wilfully” to Subsection 11(1)(a), “the whistleblower himself has willfully participated in the improper conduct disclosed”.
C4 Center said the amendments were a step forward, in particular, the removal of the proviso under section 6, saying that it had long advocated for the removal of the Section 6 proviso which, since the passing of the WPA 2010, has prevented whistleblowers from accessing legal protection if their disclosures were prohibited by other laws.
“This has been particularly damaging for anti-corruption efforts when considering the raft of laws that criminalise disclosures of certain forms of information, especially in relation to government — such as the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA 1972) or Section 203A of the Penal Code (s. 203A).
“The passing of this amendment now means that Section 6 – read together with sections 7 and 11 – ensures that a whistleblower adhering to reporting procedures under the WPA 2010 will be conferred its protections.
“When considering the sheer scale and frequency of public sector corruption in Malaysia, this amendment has the potential to encourage the disclosures of information that could expose wrongdoing — even at the highest levels of government.”
It also said defining the scope of the centralised whistleblower agency must be a priority.
Section 5A establishes a “Whistleblower Protection Committee” which oversees the implementation of the WPA 2010 by enforcement agencies, as well as collection of statistics and data related to complaints received.
Previously, the whistleblower protection framework has been the subject of criticism due to the lack of streamlining amongst enforcement agencies that confer whistleblower protection, leading to confusion amongst potential whistleblowers.
Therefore, establishing a committee tasked with monitoring the handling of whistleblower protection by enforcement agencies is a welcome layer of support for the existing framework. However, according to a previous statement by Azalina Othman, the establishment of this committee is seen as a temporary fix, while the government transitions towards creating a centralised agency that oversees whistleblower protection.
Hence, it is strongly advised that the government sets out a clear timeline for the establishment of such an agency, and defines its powers, structure, and functions in the next Parliamentary sitting.
In the interim, it must be noted that the amendment bill fails to mention any criteria for individuals that are appointed to the committee. C4 Center strongly recommends that the government sets out a transparent appointment process with a clear set of guidelines defining the criteria of individuals qualified for appointment. In the same vein, the government is urged to consider a diverse set of individuals for the committee — including members from academia and civil society.
The final major amendment proposed by the government is in relation to Subsection 11(1)(a), which requires enforcement agencies to revoke whistleblower protection only if the “whistleblower himself has willfully participated in the improper conduct disclosed”.
The insertion of the word “willfully” into this subsection implies that individuals who find themselves involved in wrongdoing have the opportunity to be granted whistleblower protection so long as they are able to prove that involvement was forced upon them. Where once protection would be immediately revoked in the event that an individual was part of wrongdoing, whistleblowers are now granted more leniency.
However, serious questions arise as to whether this will meaningfully assist whistleblowers. An enforcement agent has no discretion under the WPA 2010 to determine revocation — if their investigation fulfills the elements under section 11, the protection shall be revoked.
Therefore, if an enforcement agent concludes that a whistleblower has wilfully participated in the misconduct reported, the whistleblower automatically loses protection. How can a whistleblower dispute this? Is it sufficient for a whistleblower to submit evidence to the enforcement agent? What if such evidence is unavailable? Beyond challenging the revocation of their protection in court – which would put a whistleblower at risk – what mechanisms are there for a whistleblower to prove their involvement unwillful? The amendment is silent on this.
Regardless, it bears reminding that mandating “clean hands” as a prerequisite for all whistleblowers is incredibly restrictive and is an unrealistic expectation. Resolution 10/8 of the 10th session of the Conference of States Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption states that were a reporting person to have “reasonable belief in the truth of the matter stated, regardless of any personal reasons behind their report”, they are considered to have made said report in “good faith”. This resolution is predicated on the belief that oftentimes individuals with the best access to information of “improper conduct” are those involved with the conduct themselves, especially in cases of corruption that operate in highly discreet and clandestine ways.
This does not mean that such whistleblowers are given the full scope of protections under the law. However, a balance can be struck to ensure that even “tainted” whistleblowers have incentives to come forward, so that larger corruption issues can be dealt with.
The recent Sabah corruption scandal perfectly illustrates how individuals involved in wrongdoing possess crucial information to uncover corruption. The whistleblower, who exposed a series of videos implicating Sabah assemblypersons in alleged corruption, was in fact the bribe-giver. While this has not led to any charges yet, it has shed light on the sheer scale of corruption amongst politicians in the state.
C4 Center also urged the government to include the following amendments to ensure that the opportunity for whistleblowing reform is not wasted:
- Discretionary powers for enforcement agents under Section 11: Under Section 11, enforcement agents must revoke whistleblower protection if any subsection applies. Instead, they should have discretion to decide whether protections should continue based on the circumstances;
- Expanded disclosure channels: Currently, whistleblowers only receive protection if they make disclosures to enforcement agencies. Avenues for disclosure must be expanded to include the private sector, civil society organisations, Members of Parliament, and the media;
- Improved physical protection: The WPA 2010 only provides whistleblowers “protection of confidential information”, “immunity from civil and criminal action”, and “protection against detrimental action”. The government should consider anticipatory physical protection from reprisals;
- Inclusion of support services: At present, the WPA 2010 fails to place any obligation upon the government to provide or facilitate access to legal or psychological support services for whistleblowers, which must be remedied.
–WE