LETTERS: It is easy to assume that the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 protects anyone who discloses information of alleged wrongdoings or irregular actions of a person or persons in a company or an organisation.
The spirit of the whistleblowing protection law protects someone who discloses information of irregularity, be it corruption or improper conduct in the public and private sector, that may invite a backlash while the information is being investigated.
However, the scope of the Act covers only persons who make a complaint to enforcement agencies, which includes any ministry department, agency or body of the government, including local authorities.
The immediate protection is the confidentiality of the identity of the person, which include his or her name, address and place of work.
The whistleblower will be provided immunity from civil and criminal action, and protection against detrimental action.
Detrimental action may mean disciplinary action or prosecution of the person against whom the disclosure of improper conduct has been made.
However, the law does not cover those who disclose information in the public, for instance, to the media and on social media.
In the case of Lalitha Kunaratnam, she cannot claim whistleblower status based on several criteria.
She wrote two articles, "Business ties among MACC leadership: How deep does it go?" (Part 1 and 2) based on information she got from publicly available sources (annual reports).
And using that, she insinuated the wrongdoing and collusion of high-ranking Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers.
Firstly, she does not come under whistleblower protection, simply because her identity is revealed willingly.
Secondly, a whistleblower is usually someone employed in an organisation who exposes the wrongdoing in that body and fears backlash from the employers or authorities.
Thirdly, the disclosure is blasted out on social media where anyone can have access to it.
She did not make a complaint to enforcement authorities where her identity would be automatically protected to prevent detrimental action from those affected by the disclosure of the information.
Detrimental action can come in the form of suits or even bodily harm that may or may not be directly proven to be connected to the disclosure.
Hence, the Act does not provide that guarantee of protection if the complainant has exposed his or her identity along with the information, simply because the source of backlash can come from anywhere and anyone.
Finally, the article is an insinuation of "business ties among MACC leadership" based on publicly available information, that is, the shares of Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki.
In accordance with the law, the person who is aggrieved by her article has the legal and constitutional right to file a civil suit for defamation to protect his reputation.
The Defamation Act 1957 provides guidelines for determining what is and what is not defamatory where the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the statements were untrue, and had imputed a "dishonourable or discreditable conduct" on the part of the plaintiff.
In the case of Azam filing a civil suit against Lalitha, he has every right to do so under the law.
C.K. Phang
Penang
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times