YOURSAY | “It looks impressive until you examine the script.”

‘Not whistleblowers’: Azam distinguishes Albert’s, Chegubard’s roles

Steven Ong: MACC chief Azam Baki is teaching us about whistleblowers, just as the education minister teaches us about uniforms – that wearing a flag the whole day makes one patriotic.

We need an English teacher to tell us what a whistleblower is, why it is called a whistleblower, and what patriotism actually means.

Azam explained that businessperson Albert Tei was involved in the crimes he exposed, while Bersatu activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin, popularly known as Chegubard, was a complainant who reported information he received to the police, leading the MACC to act on the report.

It is very clear here that Azam is not a rational man but one who prosecutes anyone to defend the position of his boss and his government.

Tei is a whistleblower who was also involved in the crime. A man involved in a crime but who wants to expose all those who are corrupt and who took bribes is a whistleblower.

Badrul is a second-hand whistleblower who exposed criminals. The fact that one is involved in the crime, or has not made a police report, does not void one’s status as a whistleblower and does not remove the need for protection.

Equals: The Whistleblower Protection Act has now been effectively neutralised with a single statement from the top leadership of the MACC.

Technically speaking, under this interpretation, no one can qualify as a whistleblower unless:

- He is not involved in the offence at all, and

- He has already made a police report.

By that logic, anyone with first-hand knowledge of corruption - which almost always arises from proximity or involvement - is automatically disqualified from protection. In other words, the law now protects only those who know nothing.

Put simply (pun fully intended): to qualify as a “whistleblower”, one must apparently purchase a whistle, walk into the MACC office, and blow it ceremoniously - preferably without having seen, touched, or known anything substantive beforehand.

This is not whistleblower protection. It is whistleblower theatre. And like all good theatre, it looks impressive until you examine the script.

Pink: For the first time, I agree with Azam because what he said makes sense.

How can Tei, an agent provocateur who lured people into committing corruption, suddenly complain about corruption? That is like a burglar accusing his victims of stealing from him.

Chegubard, on the other hand, is a far more credible figure. He appears morally upright and has no personal gain from exposing wrongdoing.

Unlike Tei, he does not seem wealthy and is hardly someone in a position to entice others into corruption.

Unfortunately, many Malaysians are unable to distinguish between the two. This reflects a worrying lack of critical thinking.

Wah Gor Your Favourite PM: Azam’s takeaway for the rest of us: once you commit a crime, don’t turn over a new leaf and don’t expose corrupt politicians - just go all the way and commit more corruption.

Sabah leaders are lucky to have Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Azam as their bosses. They truly understand the benefits of political financing and demonstrating financial strength in securing rural Sabah votes.

DAP and PKR are the ones paying the price for betraying “reformasi”.

GP2025: How well does Azam comprehend the law? A whistleblower is often involved in the crime but exposes it for some benefit.

That is precisely why he or she is called a whistleblower. How have people with such a limited understanding of the law come to hold positions of power?

Cyclonus: What kind of logic is this? Tei is both a whistleblower and a suspect. The MACC should have acted on his statement.

I wonder how sincere and honest MACC officers feel working under this kind of leadership.

JWKK: Tei “was involved” but he has not been found guilty yet. And why can’t he be a whistleblower when the crime involves corruption in high places?

Stop your confusion with arbitrary conditions, Azam. Despicable.

VioletBeetle0699: Define whistleblower, please. Otherwise, you think all future whistleblowers blow water only and won’t take any action on the case. There’s a case, but there’s no investigation. Why?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.