Whistleblowers should not be necessary

I WAS amazed to hear on a recent RTÉ1 programme, and in press reports, dealing with inefficiency, unacceptable procedures and malpractices in hospitals, that the use of a whistleblower in the health service was even thought worthy of discussion.

The coined title ‘whistleblower’ seems to have achieved a degree of professional acceptance at the moment, for some unknown reason.

To me, it portrays the image of a dishonourable person such as a ‘grass’ or informer, of the type occasionally surfacing where there is an atmosphere of ongoing and unhampered corruption, fraud and mismanagement.

It should be the responsibility of the Government and judiciary to ensure a culture of honesty, integrity and accountability prevails in the administration of Government departments, businesses, organisations and charities.

Only by doing this could the public be assured that all suspect practices or errors would be swiftly detected, ‘nipped in the bud’, and discreetly and efficiently rectified within their own departments - making the function of whistleblowers obsolete.

Likewise, all political donations should, by law, be paid directly to party headquarters; properly administered and officially receipted.

Handing these on to individuals, even as ‘postmen’, leave them open to suspicion as bribes, with connotations of unlawful gain.

The passing of money to acquire illegal favours from any segment of society, political, business or otherwise, should be treated as a criminal offence: traceability, in the form of official receipts, should be the only acceptable proof of innocence.

If the trustworthiness and law abidance we expect prevailed in the upper echelons of society, then it is more than likely that the hundreds of millions of euro which have been wasted on tribunals - with all the pursuant allegations of lies and scandals that have blurred our national image - would have been avoided; and whistleblowers would be non-existent.

James A Gleeson

The Grove

Thurles

Co Tipperary