KOTA KINABALU: The individual who claimed corruption among several Sabah assemblymen could lose protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 due to public disclosure, says an academic.
Associate Professor Dr Lee Kuok Tiung from the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at Universiti Malaysia Sabah stated that sharing the videos publicly could negate the individual's request for protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010.
"The individual, by revealing alleged corrupt practices to the media, bypassed formal channels outlined in the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711), which could jeopardise his ability to claim legal protection," he said.
The whistleblower, whose identity remains undisclosed, reportedly approached the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) through a lawyer, seeking an agreement not to be investigated for providing evidence of discussions between a businessman and assemblymen involving bribes for a project licence.
It is understood there are at least eight videos related to the scandal, with two already released through a news portal.
Lee explained that under the Whistleblower Protection Act, individuals who report corruption to the MACC are granted protection, provided they adhere to strict confidentiality rules.
Section 29(4) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) stipulates that reports made to the MACC must remain confidential and should not be disclosed outside the relevant authorities until formal charges are filed against the accused in court.
Based on the recent stories and video attributed to the whistleblower in a news portal, he said it would not be legally possible for him to get whistleblower status under the framework of the law.
"By choosing to disclose the information publicly, the individual has bypassed these legal provisions. Experts warn that this decision may disqualify him from the protection typically afforded to whistleblowers, leaving him open to legal consequences," the political observer added.
Lee further mentioned that the law is designed to protect those who expose corruption in good faith, ensuring their safety from retaliation.
However, it also includes safeguards to prevent abuse, particularly in cases where individuals might use the act to shield themselves from unrelated personal issues or to avoid attention from their own involvement in wrongdoing.
In this case, Lee warns that the individual’s actions may not align with the legal framework for whistleblower protection, which could limit his ability to use the law as a shield against potential backlash.
“This incident serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper reporting channels when revealing information about corruption or misconduct and the risks involved when individuals take matters into their own hands," he said.
