Protection for Whistleblowers in Malaysia

Dishonesty has become common in the workplace. Dishonesty undermines the reputation of the company, its workers and can lead to serious ethical and legal dilemmas for everyone involved. Professionals avoid dishonest behavior not because they are afraid of being caught but because it is the right thing to do. Protecting the secrecy of dishonest co

Review “Just pucker and blow: An analysis of corporate whistleblowers” in Chapter 2. Please respond to the following:

Since the 1960s, the public value of whistle blowing has been increasingly recognized. Whistle blowing statutes protect from discharge or discrimination an employee who has initiated an investigation of an employer’s activities or who has otherwise cooperated with a regulatory agency in carrying out an inquiry or the enforcement of regulations. Many states have enacted whistle blower statutes, but these statutes vary widely in coverage. Some statutes apply only to public employees, some apply to both public and private employees, and others apply to public contractors. Under the federal False Claims Act, any person with knowledge of false claims or fraud against the institution may bring a lawsuit in his or

The Scott London case reinforces the reality that our firm continually faces a significant risk that our employees, who are often privy to highly valuable inside information, will jeopardize the engagements we work on, and will disgrace the reputation of our firm. Although no compliance program can completely eliminate this risk, a robust program can greatly mitigate the danger and more importantly, can reduce the risk that a regulator or law enforcement agent will turn its investigative focus on the accounting firm

According to Harvard Law School’s article, approximately two-thirds of companies in the U.S. are affected by fraud. However, whistleblower Hotline can be as defense against management overrides. The article noted that whistleblower could be more effective if it become as apart of the corporate compliance programs and a reward of any monetary sanctions collected to motivate the employees Also, the article mention that the employees

What is the explanation of the standard view on whistleblowing presented by Sissela Bok and reported by Robert Larmer in his article?

Duska argues that whistleblowing is always justified. He claims that employees do “not have an obligation of loyalty to a company, even a prima facie one, because companies are not the kind of things that are properly objects of loyalty” (Duska, pg. 424). Duska denies one of Bok’s key conditions to blow the whistle, loyalty. This is because Duska sees the purpose of business is to produce goods and services and to make a profit. Duska’s view of a business’s purpose prevents the company, or in Case C the university, from becoming an object deserving of loyalty.

The various forms of retribution that whistle-blowers endure at the hands of employers both financially and psychologically for attempting to correct mismanagement, fraud, and dishonesty are often too much for the whistle-blower to bear. Careers are in jeopardy because individuals with strong ethics decide to pursue law suits against their employers. One example is where the US Forest Service employees found their careers ruined by either demotions or loss of jobs when caught speaking out in favor of the environment or sound science, or when

The concept of a whistleblower is that of a person who decides to report unethical or illegal actions of or within their place of employment. From the text, an extension of the previous definition goes on to say, “They may be working for private companies, nonprofit organizations, or for the government. They may disclose information inside or outside their organizations—to supervisors, regulators, or to the media.” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.47) Based on the definition, anyone of us can be a whistleblower. It doesn’t seem that the information disclosed is limited in anyway. Although, some of the information may not be protected

Over the years Congress has acknowledged and agreed that more needs to be done to incentivize and protect whistleblowers. In the early 2000s, following major accounting scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”). Then several years later, following more major financial scandals and plummeting of the United States economy into the Great Recession of 2008, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act. This section will briefly describe each of these Acts as they provide background for the dispute.

Jackson and Raftos (1997) referred to whistle blowing as an avenue of last resort. Employees find themselves in these situations when the authorities at their organisations have failed to take actions on reported issues affecting that organisation. Wimot (2000) likened whistleblowing to a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum whistleblowing would only cause minimal pain and scars on the stakeholders and organisation while on the other end is the worst scenario where the whistleblowing effects are turbulent and often experienced to be negative to all those involved (ibid).

The government uses the seal to their advantage in order to covertly investigate any and all allegations surrounding the whistleblower’s

Whistleblowers perform in many careers and are found at all levels of an organization: scientists and secretaries, lawyers and paralegals, managers and staff, security personnel and computer specialists, etc. They are as varied in age, ethnic background, education, profession, sex, and income as the population at large.

2. What measures can and should be taken to make it easier for corporate employees to ‘‘blow the whistle’’ on a fraudulent scheme they uncovered within the firm?

Whistleblowers who alert the agency to potential corruption cases will also be provided with protection by it.