Critics warned that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) is headed the wrong way by focusing its probe on PKR vice-president R Sivarasa and party worker Sim Tze Tzin in relation to the 'VK Lingam' video scandal.

Yesterday, Sivarasa and Sim were both served notices to reveal the source of the video that showed senior lawyer Lingam apparently brokering the appointment of 'friendly' judges with Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002.

Both the PKR members have been questioned by the ACA and de facto party leader Anwar Ibrahim is also quizzed today.

This controversial move by the agency - which functions under the guidance of the Prime Minister's Department - has drawn flak from various quarters.

Here are their comments:

Suaram executive director, Yap Swee Seng

We condemn this threat against human rights defenders and whistleblowers. We are outraged that instead of ACA investigating the scandal in the tape by calling up Lingam and the alleged involvement of the CJ they are going after Sivarasa and Sim.

This is totally unacceptable. It shows that the ACA is being used as a political tool to cover up the case and used to persecute whistleblowers and those who expose scandals within the judiciary.

ACA's actions show that they are not interested in investigating the scandal but rather about who provided the tape or the source of the tape. The two whistleblowers are made victims, this sends a message to the public that they should shut up because they risk being jailed for not revealing their sources.

This would have great implications on the campaign against corruption by (Prime Minister) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Transparency-International Malaysia president, Ramon Navaratnam

Whistleblowers must be persuaded and won over rather than seen or be seen to be victimised. I hope the authorities will win them over, win their support and cooperation in a constructive manner.

If we use the big stick and cause whistleblowers to be exposed to intimidation and threat, this can lead to improper investigations and we will not be encouraging the ordinary man on the street to come forward with information.

I appeal to the ACA to give a guarantee that the whistleblowers will not be penalised or prosecuted for coming forward to give information. I hope ACA takes a soft approach - that way they can handle the case properly when whistleblowers, all quarters and agencies involved will give full cooperation to them.

Former Transparency-International Malaysia presidents, Tunku Abdul Aziz and Param Cumaraswamy

We are baffled that the ACA has served a S29(c) notice on the two persons to reveal the source of the video clip. We only hope that this is not the procedure prompted by the powerless Haidar panel.

Surely the starting point in the investigation into the authenticity of the video would be simply to inquire from VK Lingam to confirm or deny that it was him in the video. If there is no response from him, then he should be the one served with the notice to extract the information.

In the absence of whistleblowers protection and/or witness protection legislation, targeting whistleblowers and putting their lives in jeopardy is just not the way.

The ACA and other agencies involved, including the Haidar panel, should not be seen as assisting and/or protecting VK Lingam and the personalities named in the clip.

Opposition Leader, Lim Kit Siang

Is there a grand conspiracy to "kill" the Lingam tape scandal at the technical level by casting doubts on its authenticity to avert any inquiry into the rot of the judiciary for the past 19 years?

With the ACA's ultimatum (to Sivarasa and Sim), the game-plan for the damage control of the explosive revelation of the Lingam tape has become clearer - the ACA is only interested in zeroing on the whistleblowers rather than the truth.

Is the (independent panel led by former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor) prepared to take a public stand opposing the one-week ultimatum given to Sivarasa and Sim to reveal the source or face prosecution, by asking Attorney-General (Abdul Gani Patail) to grant immunity to the whistleblowers by declaring that no prosecution or whatever action would be taken against them?

Bar Council secretary, Lim Chee Wee

I disagree with the ACA's approach in giving an ultimatum to Sivarasa and Sim. They should be investigating into the truth of the statements made in the video.

The source is not prepared to come forward without witness protection, this is why the panel is not the suitable avenue to deal with this matter because they lack the powers that a royal commission of inquiry has, for example, in providing protection for witnesses.

The ACA has gone the wrong way in doing this. They should be promising whistleblowers protection from any reprisals first, then only talk to Sivarasa and Sim because by then they would be ready to give more information.

SPECIAL REPORT: The Lingam tape