Breaking down the great wall of silence: Whistleblowing – why we need to make it safe to speak up

Silencing whistle blowers builds institutional moral muteness (Cragg, Schwartz, & Weitzner, 2009). Safety to speak up during, or before, a crisis is critical (Hall & Brown, 2018). Critical to workers such as doctors performing their Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm,’ critical to at risk citizens, their neighbouring countries, and more broadly global health and economics (World Economic Forum, 2020). The behaviours and actions of hierarchical regimes (democratic or communist) who silence subordinates through denying facts internally, while projecting idealised images externally are employing “defence mechanisms” (Bovey & Hede, 2001, p. 534; Schildt, Mantere, & Cornelissen, 2019). Defensive mechanisms and subsequent behaviours are, “any action, policy, or practice that prevents organisational participants from embarrassment or threat but, at the same time, prevents them from discovering the causes of the embarrassment or threat” (Argyris, 2004; Oeij, 2017, p. 14). When large institutions normalise defensive mechanisms for fear of acknowledging their own reality, they in-turn create an unethical silence (Schein & Schein, 2016).
For a number of years Amnesty International (Amnesty) have expressed concerns about China’s “systematic crackdown on dissent,” stating it normalises, “censorship, harassment and punishment for speaking out” (Amnesty International, 2019, 2020). More recently, Amnesty have campaigned against government controls to silence people accused of spreading rumours (Amnesty International, 2020). Of particular interest is why Dr Li Wenliang, his family, and colleagues from Wuhan, China were silenced when trying to speak up on the harms of the deadly COVID-19 virus (Amnesty International, 2020). Global states have joined Amnesty in demanding answers for an alleged silencing of critical information. The World Health Organisation are now conducting an independent investigation into the COVID-19 response to provide answers some have labelled the “great wall of silence” (Stewart & Glasgow, 2020, p. 15; World Health Organisation, 2020).
Dr Li is not alone in being reprimanded and silenced by an institution for trying to protect people at risk of COVID-19. There was a US Navy Captain, silenced by the Trump administration and a Polish nurse silenced by her health department (McCarthy, 2020). In Australia, a Qantas airplane cleaner attempted to speak up on concerns that their personal protective equipment was inadequate (Chau, 2020). This cleaner was advised their risk was negligible and failing to follow directives would result in termination. At least 60 Qantas workers contracted COVID-19 (Transport Workers Union, 2020).
Passengers of the Ruby Princess cruise ship claim their concerns were silenced as the organisation continually espoused the prioritisation of passenger and crew safety. If the cruise ship had openly stated details of the virus risk it would have resulted in an immediate financial threat and embarrassment. It has now been reported: “The company was well aware of the risks. Only five weeks earlier, a sister ship, the Diamond Princess, created world headlines when its passengers were trapped on board as the virus spread” (Reddie, 2020; Robinson, 2020). Ruby Princess passengers said, “ship life was the same. There was entertainment all throughout the day and the night. Nothing had changed whatsoever” (Robinson, 2020). An investigation is now underway into the Ruby Princess voyage which resulted in 18 deaths and 600 contracting COVID-19 (Reddie, 2020). Defensive mechanisms involving silencing and denying painful realities is not new (Freud, 2018). For decades theorists have cautioned against saying one thing, in this instance, ‘passenger safety is the highest priority,’ but then doing another: prioritising profit over passenger safety (Schein, 1984; Searle, 1969).
The pandemic has demonstrated how interdependent state institutions are for their health and economic wellbeing. Silencing whistleblowers and muting subordinates in one state, impacts other states and is increasingly likely to draw allegations of unethical conduct (Stewart & Glasgow, 2020). While the world awaits the outcomes and impacts of COVID-19 investigations, Australians cannot afford to engage in “othering,” where silencing is thought to only happen in other undemocratic states (Ulus, 2019, p. 1). It is right to question; it is also right to hold up a mirror to our own defensive mechanisms. Royal commissions into finance, church, aged care, bushfires, and deaths in custody have revealed Australia has many walls of silence that need attention (Hayne, 2019; Walsh & Counter, 2019; Wright, Swain, & McPhillips, 2017). Instead of building defensive walls and being deaf to whistleblowers, it is posited that the building and developing of mindful infrastructures is necessary to keep us alert and able to respond to unexpected crisis; as well as open to addressing uncomfortable realities (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).