Should Rafizi Ramli be defended as a whistleblower and champion of transparency? So far, public opinion seems to support the Opposition’s contention that he should be.
Rafizi certainly carries himself like a whistleblower and a champion, saying he is willing to be punished under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) for campaigning against 1MDB.
The government thinks differently, however.
On Friday, Rafizi was charged in the Sessions Court under the OSA for possessing and publicising part of the Attorney-General’s report to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) regarding 1MDB.
The latest episode in the 1MDB narrative began last week, when the PKR Secretary-General first divulged details from the document at a press conference. According to him, the document showed that 1MDB owed the Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT) RM396.41 million. This debt, he said, had directly affected LTAT’s cash flow, resulting in the delay of gratuity payments to non-pensionable veteran soldiers.
1MDB reacted by demanding that Parliament and other authorities investigate Rafizi for violating the OSA. It accused him of “deliberately concocting” lies and dismissed his claim that he was acting in the public interest.
“Rafizi cannot claim he is a whistleblower or is acting in the public interest,” said a statement from 1MDB. “The Public Accounts Committee, a lawful authority with five Opposition members, already has access to and is presently reviewing the Auditor-General’s Report on 1MDB.”
This episode in the 1MDB story comes at an interesting time. The past week marked a milestone in whistle blowing history with the release of 11.5 million leaked documents detailing the inner workings of a major Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca.
Called the Panama Papers, the documents implicate high-ranking politicians and other public figures in allegations of tax evasion and money laundering. The worldwide response has been swift and, at least in one case, merciless. Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson has resigned, following massive street protests over revelations that he may have failed to disclose ownership of a stake in certain Icelandic banks.
Malaysians, of course, are lapping the news up. If Iceland’s Prime Minister can be made to resign after doubt is cast on the integrity of his financial dealings, why can’t the same be done to his Malaysian counterpart?
This is the gist of the narrative now playing out in the Malaysian political sphere. The expose of the Panama Papers coincides nicely with Rafizi’s revelations and helps his image as a whistleblower.
So, should Rafizi Ramli be championed as a whistleblower? Detractors have argued that according to the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) of 2010, he doesn’t qualify as one since the documents were revealed to the press. Raja Petra Kamarudin, commenting on last year’s The Edge scandal, argues that the law states that choosing to disclose alleged wrongdoing over reporting a crime makes one a criminal, not a whistleblower.
“The WPA says that whistleblowers can provide evidence if it is legally available through the course of their work. The catch phrase here is ‘legally available through the course of their work.’ That does not cover data theft.”
It doesn’t cover OSA-classified documents either.
Yes, Rafizi’s arrest is legal, as Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has said. His only line of defence appears to be the argument that the law is an ass, as Raja Petra would put it.
Malaysians must choose between defending the laws in place or to protest against them. It remains that simple.