When lip service becomes a disservice

When lip service becomes a disservice

Published October 02, 2026

by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon

In public life, transparency, fairness, accountability (to mention only three) are terms of frequent use. They are endorsed in public discourse.  Good but careful.  They are just terms.  They constitute standards.  To make sense in the daily lives of people, they cannot be stripped bare of meaning.  The problem is not their rejection in principle but putting them into practice.  When standards are reduced to declarations of intent, the risk is that they cease to function as benchmarks to regulate conduct and instead become stereotypes. They do not become verifiable obligations and therefore risk being reduced to lip service.

The line that divides aspirations from practice is not bad faith. Often it is inertia, lack of direction, convenience or reluctance to accept the consequences of what accountability really means. Transparency exposes shortcomings.  Fairness requires difficult choices.  Criticism in public has to be avoided. Lip service tends to avoid all of this.  Disclosing only that information which is not sensitive or potentially damaging runs counter to transparency because transparency is not selective. Decisions cannot remain unexplained.  Fairness is a matter of substance.  Accountability carries responsibility and cannot be reduced to narrative.  

Lip service becomes a disservice to the public because it erodes public trust.  When people perceive transparency as partial, fairness as superficial, and accountability as evasive, then confidence in public bodies diminishes. Lip service weakens the rule of law. When lip service becomes widespread, standards that should, by their very nature, be rock solid become of low priority.  Institutions should measure their actions and operations by referring to what should be the right thing to do not address shortcomings by stop gap measures: full stop.  

Lip service tends to persist because the benefits of enforcing standards (transparency, fairness, accountability and others) are often long-term, while the disclosure of errors and institutional discomfort are immediate.  Decision-makers are tempted to favour short-term stability rather long-term ethical conduct. Because administrative procedures and systems can be intricate and technical, there could be public officials who are tempted to limit or discourage effective scrutiny. 

Therefore, lip service can flourish under the guise of procedural compliance.  There is also a cultural dimension. In some public settings, transparency and accountability are perceived as weaknesses, because strongly rooted is the approach that prefers the defence of the status quo as the immediate response to favour, rather than reflecting on making systems better for the public.
As an oversight body, the Ombudsman does its fair share by means of its investigations and operations to ensure that the principles of good administration are implemented by public service providers.  By investigating administrative conduct, requiring explanations, and making recommendations, the Office requires public bodies to keep away from lip service and put into practice what their public service obligations really stand for.  Public authorities are encouraged to keep in mind that the principles that make good administration are not optional in character but are essential components that make the public administration better.  Giving information should not be the consequence of oversight or external pressures (of whatever nature) or formal requests.  Save in exceptional cases dictated by law and which therefore should be interpreted strictly, disclosure should be a matter of course, accessible and complete.  

Observance of rules is right but not enough.  The outcomes of decisions have to be equitable, reasonable and respectful of the person.  For this to happen, requires listening, adapting, and, where necessary, reconsidering. Where errors occur, they must be acknowledged (not necessarily in public) and corrected.  A public administrator is efficient not only in everyday decisions that are taken but also in the willingness to deal with uncomfortable truths, and in the courage to change course when necessary.

Lip service is a form of institutional complacency that, when left unchecked, becomes a disservice to the very people institutions are meant to serve.  The choice between service and disservice rests in the persistent discipline of conduct.  Oversight institutions like the Ombudsman are there to help ensure proper conduct in the provision of public services. 

Published on Newsbook.com.mt on 1st October 2026