There must have been people who, like me, were left speechless by the Prime Minister’s description, on RTK Radio last week, of a whistleblower. Rather than the welcome tone of admiration and the soothing assurance of protection one is automatically inclined to reserve for the brave act of whistle-blowing, all we got was a fuddy-duddy interpretation of someone who “is caught in the same wrongdoing he or she decides to unveil.”

That was not exactly a very positive way of putting the spotlight on a person who dares to risk his or her career – hopefully not life and limb – by revealing the nauseating goings-on of an organisation, a government and a society.

Nor was it the correct definition of the actual expression, and Dr Gonzi would do well to ask his backroom boys to do their homework better in future, particularly on such embarrassing occasions when he is faced with an incredulous ensemble made up of the Leader of the Opposition and the duty staff at any given

station.

All they really needed to do was

consult Wikipedia, which has this much more realistic and precise description to offer: a whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organisation or body of people, and usually this person would be from that same organisation. This misconduct may be classified in many ways: for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public

interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organisation) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

It also goes on to state the almost inevitable: whistleblowers frequently face reprisal – sometimes at the hands of the organisation or group they have accused, sometimes from related organisations and sometimes under law. One such notorious case that made the international headlines some years back involved a conscientious Maltese scientist in his ordeal with the Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company that once employed him.

This is certainly a far cry from what we heard the Prime Minister insisting on national radio, but it is perhaps the position of power that gives one the tendency to interpret it in this sad and disappointing way. A whistleblower is certainly not someone who is making sure of saving his own skin by spilling the beans, though of course there has been the odd instance when this was the case, including well-known local criminals with prime ministers as friends who got the better of the bargain by agreeing to

testify and squeak and, in so doing, having their other court cases withdrawn.

This government, alas, does not have a great record with whistleblowers, which is perhaps why Dr Gonzi knowingly or unknowingly let himself into the labyrinth minus a guidebook, while whistling in the dark. Perhaps the most famous case in recent years was that of a former head of department in the civil service, the father of six and a dedicated family man, who ended up jobless and outcast for blowing the whistle on some obnoxious malpractices. His ‘reward’ from an ungrateful ex-prime minister for his brave act has, over the years, no doubt resulted in a terrible, albeit unavoidable, feeling of frustration and dejection.

The same ex-prime minister is known to have dealt with no less finesse in the case of a

former parastatal bank employee who chose to walk into Castille and recount some highly suspicious goings-on, only to find himself ostracised and bundled out of his job. Incredibly, this same person was once conveniently projected as some kind of hero when, as a leader within the bankers’ union when it still had teeth, he had taken to task the government of the day. Surprise, surprise, the ex-prime minister who sold him to the dogs was then still in opposition.

Where do we go from here? Government has been promising a Whistleblower Act for some time. One hopes it will not be streamlined in a way that reflects the current Prime Minister’s definition of such a person. Unless it is a law that ensures full protection, and guarantees respect for the

person who decides to come out in the open by way of bringing to society’s attention things and events that regularly undermine it, this nation would be better without it and Parliament need not bother Mr Speaker about it.

If, on the other hand, government intends to introduce a law that encourages the citizen to participate in the cleaner and more efficient running of this country, then it would and should get all the support it needs from all quarters.

The evil shadow of corruption and sleaze that has permeated the execution of certain national projects in recent years makes it imperative that we get a foolproof, watertight law that does not permit the legal profession, magistrates and judges included, to misinterpret it in a way that would offer a respite to gratified politicians and their henchmen in both the public and private sectors.

Brave whistle-blowing acts all over the world have unearthed numerous cases of malpractice and even obvious murderous intent.

We would have known nothing, for example, about the whole unsavoury business that went on inside Iraqi prisons, had not the whistleblowers chosen to reveal the horrific pictures and details of the torture and sheer tactics of humiliation perpetrated by their fellow American and English invaders. Not all of these whistleblowers found the solace for which they yearned – some of them even had to be wary of the wrath of their own military commanders and civil authorities.

Back on the local scene, if we continue to shoot the messenger, it would be no surprise if we end up without even a single message to ponder. It is not what Maltese society deserves and it’s been blowing in the wind for quite a long time now.