The concept of whistleblowing law in Islam is unique and differs from the West as it derives from the elements of Tawhid and Shari’ah. The concept is essentially dynamic and relevant since it was initially introduced during the Islamic ruling era until the present time. The practice of whistleblowing in Islam maintains the public interest (maslahah ‘ammah) which aims in fulfilling the five objectives of Maqasid Shari’ah. On the other hand, the western whistleblowing law was developed in response to tragedies in assuring good governance and protecting the public interest, in which the ideas of good and bad are determined by social norms and not based on the scriptures. In the present time, notably, the role of whistleblower is significant to response to corruption as a global issue plaguing many nations, which causes substantial destruction to social, economic and political aspect. In this regard, the purpose of this paper is to explore and compare the concept and scope of disclosure of whistleblowing law from Shari’ah perspective and its western counterpart and how its principled conviction, upholding public interest disclosure could deal with the current phenomenon plaguing many nations, corruption. With that, the methodology employed in this paper reflected the descriptive, analytic, and prescriptive approaches by analyzing the existing laws, decided cases and literature pertaining to the conceptual and the legal frameworks of whistleblowing under the Western and Islamic jurisprudences.

Such inquiry like the recent Pandora Papers requires further legislative measure in offshore banking. While banking secrecy is legitimate privacy and viable, it has different character to tax evasion and money laundering activities. This article attempts to analyse public interest disclosure, onshore and offshore banking secrecy law from the perspective of statutory and judicial approaches. Statutory and judicial approaches show that banking secrecy is regarded as strict liability offense in onshore banking. The question arises whether public interest disclosure should be allowed as statutory intervention in Labuan offshore in response to a case like Pandora Papers? This research employs doctrinal analysis to unearth and address a necessary legislative measure for further development in descriptive and prescriptive manner. From the findings, it is evident that statutory intervention is deemed required to assist public interest disclosure for further inquiry and the general rule banking secrecy stated in Section 178 of the Labuan Financial and Securities Services Act 2010 (ACT 704) and Section 139 of the Labuan Islamic Financial and Securities Services Act 2010 (ACT 704). In this case, extensive provisions should be addressed in Section 178 of the Labuan Financial and Securities Services Act 2010 and Section 139 of the Labuan Islamic Financial and Securities Services Act 2010 regarding public interest disclosure within Malaysian offshore context that is fundamentally distinctive from the onshore banking. The forthcoming legislative measure is necessary to prevent such further sail in offshore banking.