You know how to whistle, don't you, Rafizi?

The scene from To Have and Have Not

... You just put your lips together and ... blow.

Ola la ... mon  cherie, that is one sexy quote from Lauren Bacall in this 1944 classic, To Have and Have Not. And she went blowing happily ever after with co-star, stud of the times and later husband, Humphrey Bogart.

Download the movie here on Stagevu if you've never seen it.

For Rafizi, Nurul Izzah, Tony Pua, other desperately seeking stardom or matyrdom, and the rest of the public trying hard to justify Rafizi's infringement of BAFIA, whistling is easy.

But whistleblowing is easier. You just close your lips together and ... only talk to the right people. The right authorities that is.

No need to call for press conference, no need to hype the public through mosquito political tabloids, online portals, blogs and social media, and no need be a hero.

One can go legal and talk about the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 but it will only be long winded and confusing for some.

Should you need to go through the language roundabout language of lawyers s to understand why Rafizi is no whistleblower, refer to Rocky Bru's postings here.

Checkout this another one here as to not be discourage to blow the whistle on the misconduct of their  employer, be them a corporation, businessman or government. The whistle one blow help to save your organisation and your job.

A scene where a snitch was strangled in a car from behind 
in the classic gangster movie, Godfather

The whole idea of whistleblowing is inextricably linked to provide protection of the whistleblowers'  identity or safety or prosecution from the law for leaking damaging information from inside on the wrongdoings in their company or organisation they work with.

Usually, when such thing is known, one falls under the prey of the bosses who are usually the culprit. Thus one need to be protected from being known.

Some bosses can go to the extend of causing harm or "exterminating" on squellers in their organisation.

Leaking information is an offense under breach of confidentiality. Every employee will usually sign in their  employment acceptance letter and is a standard term and condition of employment to maintain confidentiality. Protection from the law is required.

More to understand Whistleblower and Whistleblowing Protection Act in Wikipedia here and here, respectively.

A scene from the 1976 classic, Rocky

Now the issue at hand.

Does Rafizi and his informer, Public Bank clerk, Johari Mohamad deserve protection from the law, in this case BAFIA on banking secrecy?

Johari and Rafizi

If the whistleblower is meant to keep the person's identity underlid, how do one protect the identity of someone like Rafizi, who actually called for one press conference after another and provide one cliff hanging statements after another to entice the press and alternative media to speculate and propagate the alleged misappropriation in the NFC scandal?

Does he want to be protected from his identity known? Only a numbnut will say yes.

Some will argue that Rafizi have exposed the issue in public in order to get investigation done and pre-empt any attempt to cover-up. Consequently, Rafizi is a matyr willing to sacrifice himself to expose this wrongdoing.

A court room scene in the movie classic, To Kill a 
Mocking Bird

For that matter, is it a wrongdoing yet?

Let's not be presumptous to assume what he has told to be wrong. For any leakage of information, it is a small part of a big picture. He is only one in a group of blind men holding different parts of an elephant.

Rafizi's snitch, Dato Fauziah
Yaacob  

It needs an investigation by the pihak berwajib of police or MACC to ascertain whether such wrongdoings occurred.

Rafizi can't possibly know of the minute details of the Halcrow report or the decisions of the other committee.

He only knows the little bit  leaked to him by his informer such as Dato Fauziah Yaacob of Government Procurement Division of the Ministry of Finance to him on the LRT Ampang contract.

[Read The Unspinners revelation here.]

Do not forget that sometimes one think one has a case. But can one win in court? Does the evidence and witness corroborate with the allegation?

Remember that in the corruption case against Dato Norza Zakaria, the witness did not corroborate and turned hostile or changed their stance from the statement against MACC. So gawd knows the truth when it your words against nine "mine"s.

For yokos like Tan Sri Robert Phang, Rosli Dahalan, and Dato Din Merican, they made wild accusation and cook up conspiracy stories against IGP, AG and MACC when their collborator, the still viewed as corrupt former CCID Dato Ramli Yusoff do not have evidences and witnesses but only were political conspirators doing dirty work.

They are examples of allegations that have been psyched into the public mind but have no basis at all.

When taken to International Court, kalah. And now the conniving Rosli Dahalan goes around claiming he was the person who proposed to negotiate a settlement. He doesn't want more fighting. Sic ... berlakun! 

Repeating the point, one need to get evidence and witness to corroborate with evidence despite strong and logical indicators and many stories abound of the corrupt act of Dato Ramli Yusof and proxy Rosli Dahalan. Believe it or not, he is no pious and humble man.

Finally despite having evidences and taking the fella to court, the judge still have the final say whether someone is wrong. Who are you and me to say that Rafizi is disclosing a wrong doer unless it is proven?

A politician at work in a scene from Citizen Kane

If some sceptic say that Rafizi do not trust the issue will be properly dealt with and end up swept under the carpet, has he done so before disclosing it to the public on the wrongdoings of the accused and the authorities?

Trust me. He is not interested for justice, or the truth or fighting corruption. See Selangor as example. Did we hear Rafizi's voice in any of the long list of expose of corruption and palpractices in the administration of Selangor? None.

Rafizi just wants the publicity and willing to be a martyr. For opposition, going to prison or being charged in court is an honour and gains them respect.

Frankly he is not serious about whether there was misconduct or wrong doing committed. He is Strategic Director of a political organisation, PKR. The motivation of any political party is to seize or maintain power. He is merely doing his job in the game of power to discredit the Government.

He just wants to make a political issue and make his accusation on the Government believable to gullible public.

Carry Grant and Grace Kelly in an Alfred Hitchcock classic, To Catch a Thief

In the NFC case, he is not interested to tell the truth that there is a bona fide ongoing operation.

He hid the story of the Government mistake to stop building the infrastructure which include the arbatoir. thus causing NFC operational and capacity problem.

While it is dumb on NFC to invest idle cash from the loan in risky long term investment, be it supposedly lucrative high end properties in strategic areas, the only mistake they did was not to issue the easily obtainable Circular Directors of resolution.

But it is a company they have control.

It is not their fault for not using the fund as it is originally intended. One Government Ministry fumbled!

This blog had resented the manner the award was given to a Minister's husband but there was no wrong doing by the Minister to be accused involvement by Rafizi. Good that Dato Shahrizat Jalil is sueing Rafizi because it is a sure wrongful accusation.

Dato Salleh was not wrong to be awarded the fund and Government assistance. Blame it on Pak Lah's sleepy decision to give to a Sahabat who is not in the animal husbandry business.

And, Dato Salleh will have to deal with his conscience for not paying the person who prepared his business plan to import cow and do fattening for the initial part of the operation before the full rollout. Why didn't Rafizi raised this issue?

While in the case of the LRT Ampang, it was not the truth but Rafizi's motivation to help a fellow PKR and Anwar's close friend from MCKK days, Dato Rameli Musa of Ingress to secure the project with partner Balfour Beatty.

Neither did he not tell the full story of Halcrow's report. Nor did he revealed to the public that the JV Ingress-Balfour Baetty used the Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron to unfairly used international pressure to secure the contract.

[Read the full disclosure in Jebat Must Die here and here.]

Rafizi created disinformation using leak information from Dato Fauziah Yaacob, Secretary in the Government Procurement Division of the Ministry of Finance.

Thus far it is only about Rafizi but it is the same with other young political wannabees like Nurul Izzah and Tony Pua.

Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart 'whistling' together in
To Have and Have Not

With such loud and deviously intended whistle from Rafizi, does he know how to put his lips together and blow a whistle?

Not only Rafizi not gonna get a good duck if he talks too loud, he will get himself ducked!

And it is only the beginning...