The article below was sent to me by a source who was very close to the parties that authored Malaysia's Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. The sender has requested anonymity ...
The Rafizi Ramli exposè of the National Feedlot Centre (NFCorp) Scandal: The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 [Act 711] Point of View
Background
•
The National Feedlot Centre (NFCorp) is a firm that runs the Federal Government’s cattle farming project, which was awarded to the firm in 2006
•
Linked to former Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Jalil’s family.
•
Probe into financial mismanagement of NFCorp beganlate last year, as a result of the Auditor-General’s 2010 report that NFCorp only achieved 41% of its target of 8000 cattle in 2010.
•
Since the scandal broke in October 2010, PKR has been demanding Datuk Seri Shahrizat for explanation on the alleged financial mismanagement and corruption, in addition to unveiling further allegations of financial misappropriation by NFCorp.
The Charge
•
Mr. Rafizi Ramli, the strategy director of PKR, who also happens to be the Petaling Jaya Utara MP was charged under subsection 97(1) of BAFIA for disclosing four customer profile documents pertaining to the balance summary of NFCorp, National Meat and Livestock Sdn. Bhd., Agroscience Industries Sdn. Bhd. and Datuk SeriMohamad Salleh Ismail (Datuk Seri Shahrizat’s husband) to two individuals, namely –
o
A media consultant named Yusuf Abdul Alim; and
o
A journalist named Erle Martin Carvalho,
At the PKR headquarters in Merchant Square, Jalan Tropicana Selatan 1 on 7 March 2011.
•
Conviction will result in a fine up to RM3milliom and jail up to three years.
•
A conviction will also seriously jeapordize Mr. Rafizi’s chance of standing as a candidate in the next general elections and defending his seat.
•
Mr. Rafizi’s arrest and subsequent charge is being touted by certain quarters as victimization of a whistleblower and would only serve to deter “future whistleblowers”, and would deal a serious blow to the public’s perception on the government’s seriousness in combating corruption.
Mr. Rafizi’s plight from Act 711’s point of view
•
Careful reading of Act 711 clearly shows that Mr. Rafizi does not fall within the ambit of a whistleblower envisaged by the Act, for several reasons –
o
The disclosure was not made to any enforcement agency – breach of section 6 of WBPA
o
The information disclosed was made public – breach of section 8 of WBPA
o
His identity is known to all and sundry – breach of section 8 of WBPA
o
•
Looking at the players involved in this drama it is clear that the actions of Mr. Rafizi and the people coming to his defence are clear examples of manipulation of the letters of the law to suit one’s political agenda.
•
The Opposition will never stop politicking every move of the Government, even to the extent of manipulating the tenets of the law and provisions of legislations to suit their agenda.
•
Their loose interpretation of the term “whistleblower” is clearly used as a tool to attack and ridicule the effort and good intention of the Government in introducing Act 711 in the first place.
•
The reasons a whistleblower should remain anonymous are –
o
1. Protection of the information contained in the disclosure
o
2. For his protection and safety, as well as the safety of the persons related to him;
o
3. Protection of the person accused of the wrongdoing, should investigation reveal him to be innocent after all; and
o
4. Protection of any person named in the information disclosed, who may be harmed if the information is made public.
•
Mr. Rafizi’s conduct is a pure case of character assassination as he would stoop to despicable means to obtain information in order to taint the reputation and good name of certain individuals or his political rivals.
•
The action of the people coming to his defence in claiming that he is a whistleblower who is being victimized for being a member of the Opposition, despite knowing that he did not come with clean hands is also aclear case of manipulating and distorting the provisions of the law to confuse and influence the public, or rather, pretending to be ignorant of the letters the law or just plain stupidity on their part.
•
The conduct and attitude of the Opposition is shameful, irresponsible and contemptuous towards the spirit of the Act, and it would be a shame for them to seek protection under this Act when it is appallingly clear that goodwill and betterment of the nation was the last thing they had in mind when making such claims.Instead, all that they have to offer is criticism of the government’s effort in combating corruption and claiming their rogue acts as a class act in unveiling corrupt practices andknowing that such information is prohibited by law from public disclosure, yet unashamedly claiming to the whole world that they deserve the protection under the very Act that they have been criticizing.
- rocky's bru
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.