In the heat of battle, when the fog of war descends, politicians resort to soundbites and slogans. This is an ubiquitous phenomenon, at least where democracy rules, because "we, the people" are well known to have the attention span of particularly flighty gnats (or so they think) but that's not really a good excuse.
Given that your average punter, however, is not always in possession of the faculties needed to make erudite statements, not necessarily through his fault, in the comments sections online this may be forgiven, for all that the inanities and stupidities are sometimes wondrous to behold. In people who seek to lead, however, wooly thinking is not excusable, whatever the field the non-thinker ploughs.
Aspirant leaders of the country, therefore, should not go around blithely spouting slogans that are as full of wisdom as the nearest empty vessel.
A "whistleblower act" would not necessarily have made investigating the oil and commissions affair any easier, whatever Joseph Muscat says.
To start with, there is already protection for some whistleblowers in Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta. This is the Employment & Industrial Relations Act and, obviously, it protects employees: in the instance under discussion, these are the most obvious sources of information, so there is extant coverage.
To be going on with, as far as I can make out, whistleblower legislation is not there to protect perpetrators, for which aspect, pardons exist, allowing penitents to turn State's Evidence.
Another instance of wooly thinking is demonstrated by elements of the LGBT community, who seem to think that the Labour Party deserves some sort of gratitude because forty years ago, sodomy was decriminalised. Please note, friends, sodomy is not tantamount to homosexuality, however much the Lil'Elves and Peculiar Pundits try to spin it that it is.
Love between two human beings is expressed in many ways, as, for that matter, is lust, and decriminalising just one of the physical aspects is not, unless you are terminally wooly headed, evidence that the Labour Party is any more tolerant than any other party.
In fact, given its history and the undertones in many comments you see by its supporters, quite the contrary might well apply.
A third instance of wooly thinking is the myth being put about that because of the heroism of some ex-Honourable Gent, people having to "help the police in their enquiries" can have a lawyer with them during the process. This is simply not the case.
If you are asked by a rozzer to step into his office for a chat, you can phone a lawyer, but if you do, your presumption of innocence if you simply clam up is somewhat tarnished. In fact, most people with some street smarts don't actually phone their briefs, for that very reason and many lawyers actually advise their clients not to phone before interrogation, for the same reason.
It would be nice if we could be treated with some respect for our intelligence, wouldn't it?