Anti-informer culture still rife

The risk of corruption is significantly heightened in environments where the reporting of wrongdoing is not supported or protected.

JAMAICA HAS long had an ‘informer fi dead’ culture. The proverb ‘see and blind, hear and deaf’, in essence, pay attention to your own business and not meddling in another person’s affairs, is adhered to. Consequently, in Jamaica this legislation, in order to gain traction, needs significantly more than just passing the legislation. And as Johnson and Soeters (2015) highlighted, the ‘informer fi dead’ culture “flourishes within the context of this crisis of public safety, ‘anarchic disorder’ and a widespread perception by scholars of systemic weaknesses in governance, and in policing”. Thus, with the strong cultural sentiments of minding one’s own business, the reluctance to blow the whistle on wrongdoings is not surprising. There is often a high personal cost to reporting, notably alienation and fear of retaliation.

The risk of corruption is significantly heightened in environments where the reporting of wrongdoing is not supported or protected. Public- and privatesector employees have access to up-to-date information concerning their workplaces’ practices, and are usually the first to recognise wrongdoings. However, detailed regulations on the scope of application of the procedures of the legislation might help in yielding results. The legislation affects both public and private entities, but without regulation, it is unlikely that we will see improvement in reporting.