Latest news with #whistleblower
Malay Mail
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Nothing shocking about he who reports ending up being charged for an offence — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 20 — Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711) says that an enforcement agency (EA) 'shall revoke' a whistleblower protection if EA is of the opinion, based on its investigation or in the course of its investigation that the whistleblower himself has participated in the improper conduct disclosed in his report to the EA. The word 'shall' means must; there is no discretion. Some reformists have called for, among others, that 'shall' be substituted with 'may' to allow for discretion in the EA to allow whistleblower protection in genuine cases where a whistleblower is remorseful and has repented his participation in the improper conduct. Be that as it may, the EA 'shall give a written notice to that effect to the whistleblower' — Section 11(2). Aggrieved by the decision of the EA, the whistleblower may refer the decision to the court for determination — Section 11(3). The court may make an order for the preservation of the whistleblower protection and may also make such consequential orders necessary to give effect to the order for relief — Section 11(4). Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711) says that an enforcement agency (EA) 'shall revoke' a whistleblower protection if EA is of the opinion, based on its investigation or in the course of its investigation that the whistleblower himself has participated in the improper conduct disclosed in his report to the EA. — Pexels pic There is no carte blanche protection, yet there is redress for the decision to revoke protection. Accordingly, there is nothing shocking if a whistleblower who has co-operated with authorities is later informed he would be charged in court on June 30. In any case, as I had written in December 2022, he who makes a report can be investigated, and charged if the investigation reveals an offence committed by him. Such a course of action is not prohibited by Section 107(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which deals with information relating to the commission of an offence. It does not in any way prescribe the persons to be charged following the investigation. Following investigation, the person who makes a report can himself be charged if the investigation reveals an offence committed by him. Nothing shocking about he who reports ending up being charged for an offence. *This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Free Malaysia Today
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Telegram complies with court order, ‘Edisi Siasat' blocked
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission had filed a civil suit against Telegram and two of its channels. (Pexels pic) PETALING JAYA : Online messaging platform Telegram has complied with a High Court order to stop the spread of offensive material by purported whistleblower channel 'Edisi Siasat'. Checks on Telegram showed that Edisi Siasat has been blocked this evening, with users notified that the channel 'can't be displayed because it violated local laws'. FMT was made to understand that this was a result of Telegram complying with the interim injunction issued by the High Court. Edisi Siasat has, however, already set up a second channel on Telegram. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) had filed a civil suit against Telegram and two of its channels for allegedly spreading harmful content that could erode trust in public institutions and threaten social order. The MCMC said Edisi Siasat and Edisi Khas were found to have published content that violated provisions under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. Both Edisi Siasat and Edisi Khas were anonymous Telegram channels known for publishing whistleblower-style allegations, particularly targeting public institutions and enforcement agencies. Despite being unofficial, their posts often gain traction and trigger public debates. The MCMC reminded social media platforms that they have a duty to ensure that the content on their platforms did not violate Malaysian laws, adding that it would not hesitate to take similar action against other providers.
The Independent
20 hours ago
- Health
- The Independent
Review exposes series of failings by UK nursing regulator
A review by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) found the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) wrongly approved over 350 "fraudulent" or "underqualified" nurses to work in the UK. The PSA's report revealed the NMC is failing to meet 7 of 18 national standards, including maintaining an accurate register and addressing patient safety risks. The wrongly approved applications included "fraudulent" entries from centres in India, Nigeria, and Pakistan, as well as nurses who had not completed sufficient training hours. Industry leaders and the original whistleblower expressed grave concerns about the NMC's lack of progress and its inability to self-correct, despite previous warnings. The NMC's interim chief executive acknowledged past failings but stated that "radical change" is now underway, following the resignations of its former leadership.
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Malay Mail
MACC clarifies whistleblower protection after viral clips implicate Sabah reps to face graft charges
KUALA LUMPUR, June 19 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has confirmed that the individual set to be charged alongside two Sabah assemblymen in connection with a corruption case involving mineral mining licences is not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. Its Legal and Prosecution senior director, Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, said Section 11(1) of the Act clearly states that anyone involved in the offence they report is not eligible for protection. 'If a person is involved in the wrongdoing, they are not protected under the Act and therefore cannot be considered a whistleblower,' he told Bernama yesterday. He said to qualify for protection, a report must be made in good faith to a recognised enforcement agency such as the MACC, the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), or other authorised government bodies. 'Reports made with malicious intent, such as to seek revenge or defame others, do not meet the criteria for protection,' he added. Wan Shaharuddin also stressed that a key requirement under Section 11(1) is that the whistleblower must not be complicit in the wrongdoing being reported. If found otherwise, any protection granted may be revoked. 'This is to preserve the integrity of the whistleblower framework and prevent it from being misused as a 'shield' by those trying to escape accountability,' he said. Earlier, the individual's lawyer claimed his client was a whistleblower who had cooperated with authorities but was later informed he would be charged in court on June 30. Recently, several video clips allegedly featuring conversations involving certain individuals and Sabah elected representatives discussing corrupt practices linked to mineral mining activities went viral on social media. Previously, MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki confirmed that two Sabah assemblymen and another individual are expected to be charged in court this month in connection with the scandal. — Bernama
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Malay Mail
Not a whistleblower if complicit, says MACC of third man to be charged in Sabah mining scandal
KUALA LUMPUR, June 19 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has confirmed that the individual set to be charged alongside two Sabah assemblymen in connection with a corruption case involving mineral mining licences is not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. Its Legal and Prosecution senior director, Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, said Section 11(1) of the Act clearly states that anyone involved in the offence they report is not eligible for protection. 'If a person is involved in the wrongdoing, they are not protected under the Act and therefore cannot be considered a whistleblower,' he told Bernama yesterday. He said to qualify for protection, a report must be made in good faith to a recognised enforcement agency such as the MACC, the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), or other authorised government bodies. 'Reports made with malicious intent, such as to seek revenge or defame others, do not meet the criteria for protection,' he added. Wan Shaharuddin also stressed that a key requirement under Section 11(1) is that the whistleblower must not be complicit in the wrongdoing being reported. If found otherwise, any protection granted may be revoked. 'This is to preserve the integrity of the whistleblower framework and prevent it from being misused as a 'shield' by those trying to escape accountability,' he said. Earlier, the individual's lawyer claimed his client was a whistleblower who had cooperated with authorities but was later informed he would be charged in court on June 30. Recently, several video clips allegedly featuring conversations involving certain individuals and Sabah elected representatives discussing corrupt practices linked to mineral mining activities went viral on social media. Previously, MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki confirmed that two Sabah assemblymen and another individual are expected to be charged in court this month in connection with the scandal. — Bernama
