Whistleblowing dilemma: why many choose silence over disclosure / Ja’izah Abdul Jabar and Wan Mardyatul Miza Wan Tahir

• Main Authors: Abdul Jabar, Ja’izah, Wan Tahir, Wan Mardyatul Miza
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Universiti Teknologi MARA, Negeri Sembilan 2024
• Subjects: L Education (General)
• Online Access: https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/105865/1/105865.pdf; https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/105865/
• Institution: Universiti Teknologi Mara

Whistleblowing is recognised as an important internal control mechanism for discovering unethical behaviour within an organisation. From a layman’s perspective, whistleblowing refers to reporting unfavourable actions to someone who has the authority to address them. It sounds easy, but the willingness of an individual or members of an organisation, including Malaysian organisations, to be a whistleblower is still considered low (Nawawi & Salin, 2019). Therefore, let’s explore whistleblowing and examine why people are often reluctant to use it despite its advantages in controlling unethical behaviour. Generally, whistleblowing is the act of reporting a hidden or wrongful activity to an organisation or governmental agency (Bishop-Monroe et al., 2021). The term was derived from the practice of English police officers blowing their whistles when criminal behaviour was observed to alert other officers. There are four common elements related to whistleblowing: receiving party, whistleblower, perpetrator, and disclosure/complaint.