Latest news with #OfficialSecretsAct
Malay Mail
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Amendments to Whistleblower Protection Act a major reform even if info breaks other laws, says Syahredzan
KUALA LUMPUR, July 23 —The bill to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPA) (Act 711), passed in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, is a major amendment that will boost the effectiveness of the Act. Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan said the WPA was passed in 2010 to provide protection to whistleblowers, but there are several flaws in the Act that severely hampered its effectiveness. 'One major flaw in the Act is that the disclosure made must not be prohibited by any written law. This is found in a proviso in Section 6(1) of the Act. 'Thus, the disclosure of matters covered by the Official Secrets Act 1972, for example, would not attract protection under the Act. 'Consider the offence under Section 203A of the Penal Code of 'disclosure of information'. Under the section, a person who discloses any information or matter which he has obtained in the performance of his duties, or the exercise of his functions under any written law, commits an offence,' he said in a Facebook post yesterday. For example, he said if an individual uncovers improper conduct in a ministry, but that information is classified by the Official Secrets Act (OSA), even if he discloses it to an enforcement agency, he will not be accorded protection under the WPA. Syahredzan said laws such as the OSA and Section 203A of the Penal Code resulted in many whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers not falling under the ambit of protection within the WPA. 'With the amendment today, such disclosures are no longer disqualified. The proviso in Section 6(1) will be removed. In other words, even if the improper conduct is contained in a document classified under the OSA, the whistleblower can still be protected,' he said. He further said that if this bill becomes law after going through the Dewan Negara and the rest of the legislative process, a whistleblower will be protected even though the disclosure is prohibited by law. — Bernama
BusinessToday
21 hours ago
- Politics
- BusinessToday
PSmall Change, Big Impact, Whistleblower Act Amendment Passed In Parliament
The Dewan Rakyat today passed the Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Bill 2025, marking a landmark legislation, which amends the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711), which is expected to significantly strengthen safeguards for individuals who report improper conduct, particularly in cases involving public interest. The passage of the bill marks a crucial step in addressing long-standing concerns about the effectiveness of existing whistleblower protections in Malaysia. A key amendment widely lauded is the removal of the proviso in Section 6(1) of the principal Act. Previously, this clause denied protection to whistleblowers if their disclosures contravened any other written law, such as the Official Secrets Act (OSA) or Section 203A of the Penal Code. Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan, debating the bill, highlighted the 'profound impact' of this change. 'The amendment may seem simple, just a deletion of a provision, but its impact is profound,' he told the Dewan Rakyat. 'Previously, whistleblowers were only protected if the disclosure didn't contravene any written law. That meant if they revealed information under the Official Secrets Act (1972) or Section 203 of the Penal Code, they weren't entitled to protection. This effectively disqualified many honest individuals who wanted to report wrongdoing.' The revised clause now allows disclosures made in the public interest to qualify for legal protection, even if the information in question would otherwise be restricted under secrecy laws. Another notable amendment allows authorities to exercise discretion in granting protection to whistleblowers who may themselves be implicated in misconduct, provided that such protection serves the public interest. This aligns Malaysia's approach more closely with international best practices, recognizing that insiders, even those with some involvement, are often the only ones with knowledge of hidden wrongdoing. The bill also includes the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Committee. This committee will be tasked with overseeing the implementation of the Act, collecting data on whistleblower complaints, and providing general oversight on the powers of enforcement agencies. However, some civil society groups, including the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center), have previously voiced that while a positive step, this committee falls short of a fully centralized, independent whistleblower protection agency, calling for a clear timeline for such an establishment. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said had earlier emphasiaed the importance of whistleblowers channeling their disclosures through proper enforcement agencies to ensure authenticity and avoid risks to national security. She also confirmed that enhanced protections under Section 7 of the Act now include specific references to the Witness Protection Act 2009 (Act 696), allowing for additional safeguards like relocation or new identities in serious cases. Related
New Straits Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
MP calls for wider reporting avenues to protect whistleblowers
KUALA LUMPUR: Whistleblowers must be given the option to report to bodies other than the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the police, or other authorities, said Subang member of parliament Wong Chen He said this was because corruption also involved the authorities themselves. "What happens if the authorities do not take any action? What is being proposed is that complaints should also be allowed to be submitted to other parties," he said when debating the Whistleblower Protection (Amendment) Bill 2025 in Dewan Rakyat today. He said in more democratically advanced countries like the United Kingdom, France and Sweden, whistleblowers are allowed to report to the media if no appropriate action is taken by the authorities. "As such, an amendment needs to be made to protect whistleblowers who courageously submit complaints to the media. I also believe it should be extended to members of parliament. "This failure to do this is what we saw in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd case, not just in the recent cases in Sabah." He also said that protection for whistleblowers must also be given for the disclosure of corruption or abuse of power, even if the matter falls under the Official Secrets Act. "The greater good must prevail." He said the policy issue concerning the regulatory body for whistleblowers is that it should be independent and not under the control of the executive; "Accountable to Parliament, like an ombudsman body. "In this bill, these three key policy issues have not been addressed. I'm not opposing the bill, but I just want to say… You have to do more." Yesterday, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said whistleblowers should report through official channels, not the media, saying bypassing procedures risks national security and prosecution. She said this in reply to Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong (BN-Ayer Hitam) during the oral question-and-answer session in Dewan Rakyat. Wee asked about the government's decision to amend the definition of eligible whistleblowers under the law, so that restrictive conditions or criteria cannot be used as grounds to exclude them from protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Daily Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Express
Anwar brushes aside furore over judicial appointment
Published on: Monday, July 21, 2025 Published on: Mon, Jul 21, 2025 By: FMT Reporters Text Size: Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said he was repeatedly criticised last week over the issue of judicial appointments when he was merely allowing the constitutional process to proceed. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA: Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim today brushed aside the recent furore over his alleged interference in the appointment of judges, saying the episode has been conclusively resolved following an official announcement made last week. Commenting on accusations that he was interfering in the appointment of judges, Anwar said these may have stemmed from 'false information' coming out from the judiciary. Advertisement 'I believe that there were been elements within the judiciary who leaked and spread these false stories. Never mind, that's their problem,' he was quoted as saying by Sinar Harian. However, he played down the matter, saying the controversy had since dissipated. 'Alhamdulillah, no one is saying anything now, though I was repeatedly criticised last week. Now it has all been resolved,' he said. A document allegedly containing excerpts from a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting held in May went viral earlier this month, claiming that then chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat had raised concerns about the integrity of a candidate for an administrative post in the judiciary. Claims were made that the judge in question had once attempted to influence the outcome of a case in favour of a specific party, and had sought the transfer of a fellow judge for holding a differing view. An aide to the judge filed a police report urging the authorities to investigate how such information had been leaked. Police are probing the alleged leak of the JAC meeting minutes under the Official Secrets Act and two other laws. On June 30, Anwar said there appeared to be a campaign to pressure the government to either extend or end specific tenures, which he warned could politicise institutions meant to remain independent. Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh was appointed as the new chief justice last week, taking over the post from Tengku Maimun who had retired. Justice Abu Bakar Jais was appointed as president of the Court of Appeal, while Justice Azizah Nawawi was made chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak. Candidate for judicial posts presented much earlier Anwar said he had proposed the appointment of Wan Ahmad Farid as chief justice much earlier, denying rumours of a last-minute change in candidate. He also said he had proposed the appointments of eight Court of Appeal and 14 High Court judges about two months ago. The prime minister said certain parties understood the constitutional process of judicial appointments but chose to twist the facts and mislead others. 'The candidate's name was presented (to the king) earlier, before all the 'noise' surfaced. We were just waiting for the Conference of Rulers to meet on July 15 and July 16. 'Everything was according to the set process. No one can preempt the Agong or the consultations with the Conference of Rulers,' he said. Anwar also cited Article 122B of the constitution, which states that judicial appointments are made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Of course MPs could have spoken out about the Afghan leak
'Parliamentary privilege' is the collection of rights enjoyed by MPs and peers which allow them to carry out their role as legislators and scrutineers of government. One of the most important aspects of privilege is freedom of speech: simply put, MPs cannot face legal action as a result of anything they say as part of parliamentary proceedings. This protection stems from the Bill of Rights 1688, one of the foundational texts of Britain's constitutional arrangements. Article IX says: 'That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.' This is a broad protection, and it is absolute. Yet Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, and former home secretary Suella Braverman seem to be saying that they opposed the super-injunction which kept a two-year veil of secrecy over the Ministry of Defence's recently revealed Afghan data loss. They would have spoken out against it, but could have been prosecuted, so Jenrick says, under the Official Secrets Act 1989. It is hard to see how this can be true. So long as they had expressed their concerns as part of 'proceedings in Parliament', for example in the chamber of the House of Commons, they would have been protected by parliamentary privilege. In this respect, there is nothing 'special' about the Official Secrets Act, nothing within the legislation which gives it a particular status which overrides privilege. A select committee concluded in 1939 that Duncan Sandys, the young Conservative Member for Norwood, would not have been liable under the Official Secrets Act for disclosing classified information he had received about anti-aircraft weapons if he had done so in a parliamentary setting (the 'Sandys case'). Privilege would have protected him from prosecution. This position was upheld by the Committee of Privileges in 1987, and by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999, which concluded 'We recommend no action should be taken to limit freedom of speech in respect of breaches of the Official Secrets Acts in the course of proceedings in Parliament'. In evidence to the joint committee, the then-attorney general, John Morris, supplied a memorandum to which he attached a note written by his predecessor, Sir Donald Somervell, in 1939 in relation to the Sandys case. 'I would respectfully agree with his conclusion… that a statement by a Member in the course of debate or proceedings in Parliament, which would otherwise amount to an unlawful disclosure under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920, could not be made the subject of proceedings in the courts. The same must be true… for the Official Secrets Act 1989.' The existence of a super-injunction does not affect the situation either. In 2011, the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming violated a super-injunction which footballer Ryan Giggs had been granted to conceal an extra-marital affair with his brother's wife. Questioning the then-Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, on privacy injunctions, Hemming said: 'With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all…' The Speaker, John Bercow, reminded him that the question was on the principle of these instruments, but Hemming faced no legal or disciplinary sanction – he was protected by parliamentary privilege. The principle is very clear and well-established: MPs cannot be subject to civil or criminal proceedings on the basis of what they say in Parliament. That is what Article IX is for. If Jenrick or Braverman have received contrary advice, we need to know that, because it would strike at a basic constitutional principle. If they have not, they should explain why they are mistakenly claiming that they were effectively gagged.
