Reported by Wong Zi Ying and Samantha Guang
A panel discussion organised by People Psyence, Inpsyful Learning & Solutions and Eunoia Mind Wellness Hub on 8 May 2025 moderated by Victor Gan, Director of E2 Workforce Consulting , with panelists Richard Wee (‘Richard’), Managing Partner of Messrs Richard Wee Chambers (a member of Grandall Law Firm) and Theepen Manokaran (‘Theepen’), Senior Manager of Employee Relations — APAC at ResMed.
Keynote Highlights
The session addressed several key topics surrounding whistle-blowing in the Malaysian context:
- challenges in whistle-blowing standard operating procedure;
- main deterring factors for effective whistle-blowing;
- the adequacy of current legal protections for whistleblowers; and
- ways to develop robust whistle-blowing policies.
Theepen shared that a well-structured grievance and whistle-blowing mechanism plays a vital role in strengthening corporate governance by providing a formal mechanism for reporting misconduct and personal dissatisfaction. It offers reassurance to customers, shareholders and investors by promoting transparency, integrity, and accountability within the organisation.
Employees gain confidence and trust knowing there is a secure and structured process to report issues, whether related to workplace grievances or serious concerns such as conflicts of interest, embezzlement or corruption. Typically, grievances are directed to the Human Resources Department, while whistle-blowing reports are escalated to an independent director or a designated committee, which may comprise the Chief People Officer and Chief Compliance Officer in order to ensure impartiality and ethical oversight. These channels may include dedicated email addresses, online platforms and/or apps that allow for effective tracking and monitoring of all reports.
Richard shared from a legal standpoint that the enactment of s 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (‘the MACC Act’) in June 2020 marked a significant shift in Malaysia’s approach to corporate accountability. This provision holds commercial organizations liable for corruption committed by their employees or associates, regardless of management’s awareness, unless the organization can demonstrate that it had ‘adequate procedures’ in place to prevent such conduct. Additionally, while the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (‘the WPA’) provides some safeguards, it is considered insufficient on its own. Reading the WPA concurrently with s 17A of the MACC Act addresses this gap by imposing direct corporate liability and personal accountability on directors and senior management.
Both speakers explained that to make whistleblowing systems effective, organisations must raise awareness of such systems through active campaigns and foster trust by ensuring independence in the reporting process. Many employees and even employers lack confidence in current systems. Complaints are often compromised by third-party interference and threats, underscoring the need for reports to be handled by independent third parties to ensure credibility, safety and accountability.
Furthermore, each case must be assessed individually, with efforts to verify the claim’s truthfulness. It’s crucial to distinguish between inaccurate and intentionally false claims — malicious or baseless allegations should result in disciplinary action and may even warrant police reports or legal action for slander or malicious prosecution. The integrity of the process depends on ensuring the claim’s validity at every stage.
Conclusion
The key takeaway to an effective whistle-blowing and investigation framework is trust from both employees and senior management, who must demonstrate integrity to ensure impartial handling of cases. In sensitive situations, involving a third-party investigator can enhance objectivity. Ultimately, safeguarding whistleblowers is not just a legal imperative — it is essential for fostering a culture of ethical accountability.
Published on 19 May 2025