To Speak or Not to Speak: The Ethics of Whistleblowing

They say, the walls have ears, and that is the truth in a community that is social, loving and friendly. When something goes wrong, be it a corporate fraud or local criminal activity, the news tends to spread as fast as legs could carry. Everyone would definitely know it at a far distance. But there’s always a difference between gossiping around the neighbourhood and being a whistleblower.

Who exactly is a whistleblower?

This is someone who discloses confidential information about criminal activity or any illegal, unethical, or wrong behaviour within an organisation or community. Unlike gossip, a whistleblower would take such information to a higher authority, i.e, the police or a regulatory body, so that legal action could be taken as soon as possible.

Should everyone engage in whistleblowing?

This is where it gets tricky. Everyone wants a just society, and we would do everything it takes to ensure it is achieved. In the case of whistleblowing, it’s not a one-size-fits-all duty. What I mean is that when you decide to report criminal activity, it isn’t a simple yes-or-no for everyone. For one person, such a step might be safe and easy; at least they are trying to protect society. For another, it could be a dangerous step that becomes complicated later, and they don’t want to get involved in matters that will affect them.

In my view, if I witnessed criminal activity in the neighbourhood, I’d likely be one of many who know. You know bad news travels fast, right?

However, it’s not wrong to do that. I believe that if you choose to speak up, the goal should be accurate, not to go overboard or try to play detective yourself. The most responsible way for any whistleblower is to provide the exact information - nothing more, nothing less. I believe that’s the reasonable way to handle it. It’s about telling the truth, not for drama.

How about protecting those who choose to speak up - becoming a whistleblower?

The reason most people choose not to speak up isn’t that they don’t care; they're afraid of what might happen later or how things might escalate unexpectedly.

If whistleblowing is to work successfully, the authorities must ensure that safety measures are in place to protect whistleblowers. They must ensure that the person's identity isn’t leaked out. They must remain anonymous.

They must ensure that the whistleblower isn’t sued for reporting such a case. In simple terms, they must be protected from retaliatory lawsuits. Also, they must ensure that the whistleblower isn’t harassed or harmed for doing the right thing.

How about detecting genuine whistleblowers?

I wouldn’t say all whistleblowers are genuine; sometimes people report others out of spite, jealousy, or just to shift blame away from themselves. To ensure a report is genuine, authorities must look out for these things:

Are there physical documents, timestamps, or digital traces that support their claim? This is very important to look out for.

Does the story stay the same under questioning? When a report isn’t consistent, something is fishy, and such a report isn’t accurate or genuine.

There are those who only report information for the money. Authorities need to investigate further to determine whether the whistleblower has any hidden financial or personal motive behind their claim.

In conclusion, whistleblowing is a brave act, but it requires wisdom. If I ever found myself in that position, it’s better to stick to the facts and let the truth speak for itself rather than doing that for any personal motive. After all, the truth will eventually leak out because the walls have ears. But it’s better to take a step, like a nudge, to make it come out.

---

_{Image is generated by Gemini}