Dear Editor,
In the paper of June 10th I saw an article from MP. Lacroes concerning protection for whistle-blowers and I did not even read it because "it messed up my mind", to remain decent. I maintain that if someone is strong in his/her shoes that person does not have to be afraid of life.
One of the questions I continue to ask myself is why should it be possible to need whistle-blowers? "Earn up to your mistakes". As long as I can remember I know that "honestly is the best policy" Someone once told me It is the best cure for ulcers. if I am honest, I do not have to be afraid of whistle-blowers.
On the contrary that should be the motto. If you see wrongdoing, call it out. Even if it is the boss who is doing it. If you do not call it out the first time it happens, you are empowering him/herself to do that which is not right. Later you will become untrustworthy to your boss, because you have proven to him/her that you will see wrongdoing (from anyone) and don't mention it.
And also you will not be trusted anytime you say "I don't know" because they will not be sure if you really don't know. Like I mentioned before I refuse to read what LaCroes said, because whistleblowing should not exist. It should say "Russell Simmons explains what he saw/heard."
I ask myself why should I be careful with with what I say because it may be offensive to someone who is doing wrong? I hope that MpLaCroes has defended that person and make it so that wrongdoers would know that they would be considered the vulnerable persons. (Wie kaatst moet de bal verwachten) What goes around comes around.
Mp's create that attitude when they enter Parliament with "I have to be secretive if I want to score points" in mind. And I say "In a football game, you don't hide to score points, you demonstrate your ability and superiority and play the game fair.
That is what the spectators want to see. Game over
Russell A Simmons
