Doing what is right

Doing what is right

Published July 14, 2026

Article by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon

Introduction

For the public administration, the culture of doing what is right should go beyond compliance, as it places at the forefront the standards of good administration.  

The Ombudsman is an institution that investigates the administrative acts or omissions of Government.  It is there to try to correct what is wrong in the administration of public services, and to help the public administration shape its methods in order to act righty as a matter of course, without having to seek comfort in red tape or having to blame others for faults of its own doing, especially when these are systemic in nature.

Distinction

Laws impose obligations, establish limits and provide remedies.  Doing what one is obliged to do is compliance.  Doing what one is convinced that is the right thing is integrity.  Compliance alone is not enough.  A public administration that does only what it is required to do, and nothing more, may be lawful, but it will not necessarily be fair and just. Believing that the right thing should be done reflects a strong commitment that goes well beyond complex rules and strict life-less discretion. 

Standards

For people who respect and believe in what is right, the principles of fairness, transparency, accountability, and everyday respect of the person should not be considered as principles detached from the real life issues.  People leading the public administration should not suspect in the wrongdoing of others to cover or excuse looking out for credible solutions where blatant maladministration is the case.  

Mandate

The true measure of good administration does not lie in how often recommendations of the Ombudsman and/or the Commissioners are submitted in order to correct methods, practices and procedures of the public administration, but how much less often is the public administration required to change its actions.

The authority of the Office, though not coercive in nature, is moral and persuasive as much as it is institutional.   This is by far not a weakness. By means of investigations and consequential recommendations (where required) the Ombudsman and/or the Commissioners expose shortcomings and, more often than not, trace the way forward for the public administration to reflect and apply.

Rather than building more “bricks in the walls” of divisive attitudes and approaches to the fair resolution of disputes, the Office strives to promote understanding rather than mere compliance.  A process of this nature is not illusory but requires patience with some public servants, and determination with others.

Healthy discussion without pre-determined agenda in place helps  parties to concentrate on the actual. The bottom line is not to create dependence on oversight to do the right thing, but to reduce the need for oversight to do the right thing.

Response

The administrators of public services should not require prompting to act fairly.  They need not be reminded of their obligation to listen and to acknowledge the short- or long-term impact of their acts or omissions. People who lead the administration, whatever their designation, have to set priorities. They have to determine whether in their operations fairness is treated as essential or optional, whether accountability is embraced or avoided, whether criticism is seen as an opportunity or perceived a threat to a status quo.  

A public administration that aspires to do what is right has to have people who know and practice values. They must demonstrate, through their conduct, that doing the right thing knows no restrictions. Positive conduct is as important as finding faults and gives strength to the message that integrity is achievable and valued.

Instinct

For every act or omission of the public administration there is a person whose life may be adversely affected in significant ways.   An administration guided by ethical instinct cannot afford to put its credibility aside and miss out on this human dimension, including the awareness that its actions matter.  

The Ombudsman and the Commissioners play a vital role in keeping this perspective in place. By receiving complaints and, where they are founded, insist on fair treatment, the Office ensures that the public administration remains close to the people it is there to serve.

Ahead

There are times when public servants and administrators take decisions with a view to avoid blame rather than be fair.  This approach does not pave the way for the right thing to be done.  A shift from hesitation (if not alarm) to learning is essential for the development of a healthy and rightful public administration.

Conclusion

When an approach requires change or adjustment, the move forward may be gradual.  Achievement is measurable not only in resolved complaints or implemented recommendations, but in improved practices, in increased awareness, and in a growing coherence between principle and conduct.  A public administration that acts correctly because it knows it is right thing to do is welcome news. The Ombudsman and the Commissioners will continue to do their fair share to see this happen.  When that does happen, then another “brick” is removed from “the wall” of doubt between the public and the administrators of public services.

Article published on newsbook.com.mt on 13.07.26