Prequalify on corruption

Last week's parliamentary debate on Minister Jesmond Mugliett's handling of the corruption scandal at the Malta Transport Authority has not cleared the air. That hardly happened because, as wrote some commentators whose indulgence for the PN clouds their judgment, the opposition transformed the issue into a partisan controversy by moving its no-confidence motion in Mr Mugliett. Such an excuse has become a hackneyed gambit for those who dislike admitting that the opposition can only deploy political methods when it contests what in its view (and in the country's view) is public mismanagement at the highest level.

Presumably, were the situation reflected through the looking glass, with Labour in government and the PN in opposition, there would have been on the part of certain "independent" columnists and editorialists a "better" understanding of what the opposition must do when faced with the cavalier and arrogant disregard for political correctness that we witnessed in recent weeks.

That the disregard has reached disturbing proportions can no longer be denied by people of goodwill. Some - who possess no Labour credentials of any sort - have, to their credit, been speaking up.

What made the matter most serious however is that the points at issue over transparency and accountability were steadily shifting in focus towards corruption in public affairs. As a result, more people are insisting that transparency and accountability must be seen upfront, as constants of political action. Ironically, three years or so ago, the present Prime Minister assumed office while promising he would introduce a new style of doing politics. He also claimed he wanted to be judged not on the basis of what he said, but on what he and his government did.

Perhaps that is the real reason why last week's parliamentary debate did not bring closure around the disquiet raised by the Mugliett affair. Are things being done properly or are they being skewed in a way that people close to those in power find support from high places when they cut corners? The Mugliett affair was revealing. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi plunged ahead to defend "his" minister even when, on most points at issue, the explanation provided by the government was, at best, lame.

It emerged that it was the minister and he alone who had prodded the CEO at the Malta Transport Authority to suspend the dismissal of two employees found guilty of bribery. It emerged that the "collective" direction which led to that approach was the minister "consulting" with the authority's legal adviser, a political appointee of his. The board of the authority did not agree to "suspend" the dismissal.

It emerged that the "precedent" which the minister brought forward to justify his intervention was no precedent at all: The employee who was kept on the Malta Transport Authority's payroll after being found guilty of bribery was a public official while the two employees on whose behalf the minister intervened were not. The former had accepted a tip of Lm4 for some minor service, the latter were involved in a long-term scam involving significant sums of money with - according to evidence given during the trial at which they were convicted - a garage called Swallow.

Even so, the Prime Minister had no compunction in defending his minister, no holds barred. He has done the same with a number of other ministerial colleagues, inherited from predecessor Eddie Fenech Adami. Yet, I still cannot understand how, while the Mugliett stew was being cooked, nobody in the government seemed to notice or stopped the new contracts being concluded by the Employment and Training Corporation (ETC) - surely a very important public agency - with Swallow Garage. I raised this fact in Parliament.

Only last Saturday did the government accept this was a problem and "rescinded" the Swallow contract. I find it hard to swallow Dr Gonzi's version that whoever is responsible for coordination of government decision making did not know about Swallow and needed the Leader of the Opposition to speak out in Parliament before taking action.

To compound matters, Prime Minister Gonzi declared that on the Mugliett affair he would not allow the tide to carry him with it; meaning that he would not allow Mr Mugliett to resign. This immediately led to the question: Why then had the Prime Minister accepted the resignation of Foreign Minister John Dalli three years ago?

Mr Dalli himself attempted to muddy the waters by claiming that there is no parallelism between his case and that of Mr Mugliett: The former had been mounted from inside the PN, the case against Mr Mugliett by the Opposition (which, factually, is a shaky point). However, the real question is not who raises issues but whether they are justified in their substance.

On the latter point, in Mr Dalli's case further confusion arose as PN secretary general Joe Saliba, considered to be the Prime Minister's right-hand man, made some curious statements on PBS. I read closely the transcript of what he said, including the correction he made on the programme to his first statement - and could only understand Mr Saliba saying how Mr Dalli's resignation as a minister was justified because the police were investigating him. The investigation was not related to the contract for hospital equipment about which a fraudulent report had been concocted, but to some other matter. In Parliament, Prime Minister Gonzi denied this was so. Which means that, at the point of writing, I for one cannot understand why Mr Dalli was sacked, while Mr Mugliett was defended to the last.

We definitely need better, more serious ways of doing things. At this stage, kite flying about how to "reform" the Anti-Corruption Commission (a useless and toothless white elephant if ever there were one), is just a manoeuvre to distract attention from the real challenge. Which is how to bring the Gonzi Administration to adopt ways of doing things that will allow it to prequalify as a serious agent in the struggle against government abuse and public corruption.