Editorial

Most members of Parliament have to continue practising their profession in order to earn a living. Because of this, they may sometimes find themselves having to perform a delicate balancing act between what they do in their work privately and what they do or say in politics. The balancing act can turn out to be even more delicate when the MP is a top party official. It is in this light that the Charles Mangion case should be viewed.

Apart from being a member of Parliament, Dr Mangion is deputy leader, parliamentary affairs, of the Malta Labour Party. He is also a notary by profession and as such he was appointed by the buyers of a property, known as Pender Place, in St Julians to draw up the deed of sale.

The opposition claimed the sale was aimed at raising funds to finance the government's unsuccessful investment in the port of Brindisi. Party leader Alfred Sant even wondered whether Pender Place was sold to line the pockets of blue-eyed boys. That was the point when Dr Mangion's role in a business deal became somewhat questionable.

It has been forcefully said in Dr Mangion's defence that he had merely drawn up the deed of sale and that he had every right to do so as the drawing up of deeds was his profession. The point is valid, but only up to a point. Of course he has a right to practise his profession, but does it not jar when he gets himself involved, professionally, in a deal that has been considered by his own party as going against the national interest?

No one has suggested, even remotely, that Dr Mangion has done anything wrong professionally, but politically it does appear as going against the grain. The allegation that Pender Place was sold to line the pockets of blue-eyed boys makes Dr Mangion's professional involvement even more politically incompatible. It should by all accounts be a most embarrassing affair to Dr Mangion and to his party. The fact that the party has not deemed it at all embarrassing is a measure of the kind of politics we do in Malta today. Dr Sant gets a lot of feedback from his supporters on his regular rounds to open-air markets and clubs. It would be most interesting to see what kind of feedback he has had on this case.

Apart from the fact that Dr Mangion is one of the party's two deputy leaders, he happens to be one of the more valid members of the MLP and of the political class. In 1998, he resigned as Justice Minister from Dr Sant's government after assuming responsibility for having recommended a presidential pardon to a man found guilty of drug possession without referring the matter to the Cabinet first. The move had won him greater respect from his political opponents.

Dr Sant had then publicly praised Dr Mangion's decision, adding he had given a unique example of accountability and showed that he was prepared to uphold principles to the end. Well, Dr Mangion's professional involvement in the Pender Place deal brings up the matter of accountability, politically speaking, to the fore again.

If Dr Mangion offered his professional services only after he made doubly sure that the deal was completely above board, then he should have enough courage to say so. But so long as his party continues to slam the deal in the way Dr Sant has been doing, Dr Mangion's professional involvement cannot but be considered, politically speaking, in bad light.