LETTERS: Fraud and corruption in the public and private sectors can be detected through red flags, such as employees living beyond their means or from tip-offs from whistleblowers.
According to the Global Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse 2020 by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 43 per cent of schemes in 2020 were detected through tip-offs, mostly from employees who had undergone fraud awareness training.
So how come we don't promote whistleblowing more in corporations after the awareness campaigns by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) offering incentives to public-sector employees who report wrongdoings, and the enforcement of Section 25 (1) and (2) of the MACC Act 2009 requiring a public officer to report any attempt or promise of bribery by a third party?
In the corporate sector, the enforcement of Section 17A of the MACC (Amendment) Act 2018 made it a requirement under the Adequate Procedures defence to ensure that internal and external parties are aware and have access to a reporting mechanism.
Public-listed entities are required to put up anti-bribery and whistleblowing policies on their websites to comply with requirements set by Bursa, ensuring corporate compliance and transparency.
But are employees ready to take up the responsibility when recent crises have made many desperate to retain their jobs and keep on the low?
Some of these issues are legal, cultural and awareness in nature. We have the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, which protects those who make disclosures of improper conduct to an enforcement agency by safeguarding their confidential information and according protection to them against detrimental action by others.
This means a person can make disclosures to seven agencies to get the protection, including the police, Customs Department, Immigration Department, MACC, Securities Commission, Companies Commission of Malaysia and Road Transport Department.
We know the whistleblower will be accorded protection, but the issue is the disconnect between reports made using a company's internal reporting mechanism and the reports that are later made to one of the enforcement agencies if the company fails to act on that information.
Will protection be accorded as per the act? Can the whistleblower get protection from those in the company who conduct the investigation?
There is also a disconnect when it comes to the roles of civil society and human right advocates in channelling information to law enforcement on the complainant's behalf.
Looking at recent scandals — Enron, Worldcom — many whistleblowers are often seen as betrayers of an organisation and industry. It is tough to protect a whistleblower from such a mindset and the stigma through company policies or the law.
Tone at the top is key, as we need the right example to be set at the top level. Allocation of resources and a healthy corporate culture with zero tolerance for abuse and wrongdoing as well as the promotion of integrity should be aligned with the company's strategy.
Appearing to uphold integrity, but employees feeling otherwise will be a waste of money and would lead to an immediate disaster if any cases were to pop up reflecting otherwise.
The Asian culture of giving blurs the line further. How do companies measure the level of risk of bribery and ensure business continuity and growth? What are the attempts or conduct that employees are required to report if they learn about such instances?
Awareness and training are key, even if the common practices in business sometimes blur the line between what is acceptable and not.
Raymon Ram
Certified fraud examiner, Petaling Jaya, Selangor
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times