WHEN Christopher Wylie blew the whistle in 2018 on Cambridge Analytica’s role in the US presidential election meddling two years earlier, he wasn’t exactly an angel.
He had been involved in some of the questionable data practices himself but his decision to expose the truth led to a global reckoning on data privacy, sparking EU (European Union) reforms and Facebook overhauls. And for that Wylie walked away from any prosecution.
Imagine if UK authorities had ignored his revelations simply because he wasn’t “totally clean.” The scandals would have stayed buried while the executives would still be cashing in on everyone else’s expense.
Yet here we are in Malaysia faced with a whistleblower holding incriminating evidence against eight Sabah assemblypersons – and our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is telling him there’s no guaranteed protection. Why? Because he’s the “bribe giver.”
Has anyone in power stopped to think: who else but the bribe giver could provide this level of evidence?
Let’s break down this logic. According to PMX, protection is only for those who are squeaky clean. So, if you were desperate, coerced or even pushed to hand over money to secure a project – too bad – you’re a criminal, too!
The Sabah whistleblower’s situation isn’t that different. He claims to have been pressured to give bribes to secure a project in which he’d already invested heavily.
Frustrated and exploited, he decided to expose the corrupt officials, risking his safety in the process. Yet instead of investigating the state assemblypersons, the authorities seem more interested in prosecuting him first.
Against all odds
With the Sabah state election around the corner, it’s worth asking if this insistence on “no protection” for the whistleblower is really about justice – or just politics.
Is the Anwar government which is relying on Sabah and Sarawak’s political backing intent on subjugating government apparatus to send a message? Is this truly about upholding integrity or keeping a tight grip on local power?
The irony? Without the whistleblower, these assemblypersons would continue pocketing bribes unchecked, their greed flourishing behind closed doors.
And yet in the political game playing out now, the whistleblower is treated as dispensable or simply a pawn in Sabah’s political theatre.
This isn’t the first time Malaysia has flirted with such convenient double standards. PMX’s principle of “no protection for the bribe giver” sounds noble in theory but reeks of selective integrity in practice.
This hard stance might play well for PMX’s image but it leaves Pakatan Harapan (PH) voters asking where this tough talk was when convicted figures were given pardon or when high-profile cases were dropped without convincing explanation.
It’s almost as if the rule of law is optional, its application depending on who’s in power and what they need.
At the heart of this debacle is a troubling message: just keep quiet if you’re being extorted by corrupt officials because the law of the land will treat you no better than the crooks you expose. The bottom line is that his doesn’t encourage whistleblowing but discourages it.
Malaysia’s anti-corruption drive is toothless without whistleblower protections that extend to imperfect individuals.
Systemic corruption isn’t just perpetrated by those who demand bribes but sustained by those forced to give them. If we can’t make space for whistleblowers – even those tainted by the system – the public’s trust in justice will erode faster than our officials can give speeches about reform.
So, here’s a thought for PMX: give whistleblowers protection. That’s how you build a credible justice system – by protecting those who risk everything to shed light on the rot. And, while you’re at it, perhaps leave Sabah’s political theatre out of it. – Nov 13, 2024
Main image credit: International Compliance Association
