Against the grain

We had all been led to expect a different government from the dynastic styled administration of Dr Fenech Adami where Richard Caruana Curran (RCC) allegedly reigned as spin doctor supreme while apparently calling the shots on the most pivotal issues facing the country.

Our expectations were soon to be deflated.

The Europarliament election campaign revealed a major flaw in the strategy of the Gonzi-led administration. It had nothing to do with the 'traditional' mid-term blues, since these elections were held only one year and a couple of months away from the general elections of 2003.

The main thrust of the campaign itself showed that while the Nationalist Party had decided to rely on platitudes and empty rhetoric, the Labour Party gave tangible proof that it was completely in sync with the Maltese electorate by harping on the major issues that were hitting the average man in the street hardest.

Since then we have had two sterling occasions which gave tangible proof at the manner in which the Gonzi administration distanced itself from the feelings, sentiments and aspirations of the Maltese and Gozitan electorate.

On the Dar Malta issue it was evident right from the start that Dr Gonzi succeeded in doing the virtually impossible by mobilising both the media and public opinion against his government's irresponsible and extravagant decision at a time when he was doing his utmost to rein in public expenditure while using some of his strongest language so far when addressing the chairpersons of the government-appointed boards managing the key government quangos and parastatal organisations.

What added further fuel to the fire were the findings of a recent survey by this newspaper which revealed in no uncertain terms that the majority of those interviewed disagreed fundamentally with the PM on the economy.

At a time when the PM was all praises about his government's efforts to improve Maltese citizens's quality of life, the same survey found that three quarters of those interviewed admitted that they were having problems in making ends meet.

The Government 'promise' that the economy was on the mend did not seem to have made much of an impact, so much so that the same survey found that only two-fifths of those interviewed really believed that the economy will improve.

Right now the Nationalist administration is trying to cushion its poor administrative decisions by blaming them on inadequacies in their communications strategy.

If Dr Gonzi's answer to this dubious problem is to hold monthly press briefings as well as damage limitation interviews such as that carried recently in The Times then it is high time that the Nationalist government strategists went back to the drawing board.

It is pointless for the Prime Minister to try and blame the flack that his government has been subjected to on Dar Malta by Maltese public opinion by claiming that it was all the fault of the Malta Labour Party and that the Opposition should stop throwing stones and hiding in glass houses.

If Dr Gonzi tactically wanted to get the Dar Malta issue off his chest and out of the way as early as possible he had an easy way out. He could have referred the matter directly to the Auditor General in his capacity of Minister of Finance, the same way he had done on an issue of far secondary importance - the air ticket purchasing issue by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time that Minister John Dalli was responsible for that particular Ministry.

But the Prime Minister seems reluctant to bow to public opinion, continuing to insist that the purchase of Dar Malta in Brussels is a good investment for the government.

His most dumbfounding statement to-date was that the decision on Dar Malta will not be reversed since Malta needs the building to reap the benefits of membership (in the EU).

Having recently learnt from a correspondent of The Times that the Latvian government had actually turned down an offer to buy the same property that the Malta government ended up buying in Brussels, does this mean that the Latvians have opted to refrain from reaping the benefits of such membership?

When Kullhadd's investigative journalist Joe Mifsud recently visited Brussels not only did he take photos of the dilapidated condition of the would-be Dar Malta but he also managed to photograph most of the Embassies of a number of other EU member state missions to the European Union. None of them seem to have opted for the same extravagance as the Maltese government has apparently done.

Dr Gonzi's claims that the whole affair had been handled with full transparency have not convinced the majority of the electorate. We are still awaiting a firm and concrete reply as to whether Mimcol studies on Dar Malta were carried out in a completely independent manner or else whether they followed the parameters, guidelines and template allegedly laid down by RCC.

Neither have reassurances been given that Maltese parastatal companies such as MTA and Malta Enterprise will not be 'encouraged' in the subtlest of arms twisting manners to take up office in the same building. The vivid memory of the sour experience Mid-Med Bank, the NTOM and Air Malta went through in the London Malta House should have opened up government's eyes to the folly of the pursuit of such a policy.

One thing is certain - if these qaungos are eventually coerced into renting such premises government might be charging them for the space made available to them, but it will not be earning any foreign exchange in doing so.

The Prime Minister claimed in an interview with The Times that Richard Cachia Caruana's involvement in the buying process was indirect rather than direct, since the final decision that took into account all aspects - that is price, location, and space available - was a Cabinet decision. It would be in the public interest to find out who was the Minister who actually presented the memo to Cabinet and whether there was unanimous agreement on the proposal submitted.

Given the revelations that have seen the light of day in various local newspapers in recent weeks, the mind boggles at the type of reply Dr Gonzi chose to give The Times when he claimed that when it came to the selection of the Maltese architect, Mimcol were responsible "after consultation with ourselves and Richard." Quote unquote!

While doubts have recently been sown on how successful Malta can/will be in renting out the commercial parts of the Brussels property, Malta has by Dr Gonzi's own admission bought a building twice the size that it requires. Irrespective of whether Malta succeeds or not in renting out commercial parts of the building, refurbishment costs will also have to be carried out on that part of the property that will not be used by the Embassy for administrative purposes.

Dr Gonzi's reassurance that by renting a property so big, so expensive and so close to the Commission his government has identified a formula which will set off the running expenses either smacks of a political cover-up or else is nothing but a telling example of political naiveté.

Government's behaviour left many a jaded palate in its wake particularly in the light of government's declared policy to divest itself of commercial interests.

The Opposition's position is crystal clear. Unless the Auditor General initiates an investigation on his own initiative or else at the request of the Finance Minister who also happens to be the Prime Minister, the matter will be probed at Public Accounts Committee level.

The PM's remarks that we should not even wait for parliament to convene in order to do so, rather than betraying a sense of urgency shows that Government's main priority seems to be to get the issue out of the way as early as possible.

To save face and political embarrassment. And hopefully move on to other business.

Leo Brincat is the main opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs and IT