The human factor

The furore following the resignation of Richard Muscat as Malta's ambassador to Ireland confirms the masochistic tendencies of Malta's political class. There can be little doubt that the ex-ambassador made a bad mistake in not apprising his minister that a member of his family had been involved in an incident which led to a brush with the law. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that, if diplomatic immunity was not invoked, that incident belonged to the realm of the human factor, the frailty in all of us which excludes no human being from erring.

Each time we heart of a lapse in others, we should say "There, but for the grace of God, go I". Instead all too often we tune up our ears to hear more and lick our lips with anticipation, the more salacious the prospect, the better. Within the political class the general practice is make the sins of the parents the sins of their offspring, and the sins of their offspring those of the parents. More so, in fact, as the link embraces connections as far as can be stretched. And it matters not if the issue is one that still has not been proven.

So if Paul is reported to have streaked down Republic Street and his father happens to be Peter, a politician, the story becomes that Son of Peter the Politician was caught running naked through town centre. If charges are filed, if the accused is found guilty, the story continues to be led by the fact that the father is a politician. The link extends to anyone who is known to support and canvass a politician, anyone who serves in a minister's secretariat.

And let there be no hypocritical raising of hands in horror - the style applies to all parties. Read the party organs and you are bound to find confirmation of my assertion. The politician is always tarred by association, not merely when s/he deserves to be tarred, feathered and jailed. That extends to high profile public officers as well. If, as Catholics, we did not adhere to the original sin syndrome, we could easily patent our classification of sin-by-association.

The specifics of Mr Muscat's resignation are simple. He is a former politician. He did not come out totally unscathed from allegations regarding things that went on in his tenure in charge of the Voice of the Mediterranean (VoM) radio station. After that case was aired, through the auditor-general and in the Public Accounts Committee he was reappointed Ambassador to Ireland, something which the Labour Opposition criticised harshly.

Barely had that dust settled that Mr Muscat resigned - the Irish press revealed that his son had been questioned over alleged sexual harassment in October of last year. The ambassador insisted that when his son, who has a psychiatric condition, was questioned, he did not invoke diplomatic immunity. That stated, Mr Muscat tendered his resignation.

The foreign minister, who declared he had had no inkling of the allegation, immediately accepted the resignation. The legal case continues, but on the basis of perception, it became a tried fact.

In the absence of a proven case which could hinder the role of an ambassador, and of any hint of insistence on diplomatic immunity, why should anyone in a similar situation resign over the issue? Resignation simply blows the issue open, making it subject to popular interpretation, rather than to the due process of the law.

But such issues are not treated within the parameters of logical interpretation, which is based on the fact that no one can claim that all his family, all his close relatives are always and forever like Caesar's wife - above suspicion. They fall under the broom which sweeps away individuals on the basis of presumed guilt by association. The Foreign Minister was smarting under the Opposition's attack over Mr Muscat's reappointment in the context of the Voice of the Mediterranean affair.

It appears that it did not cross his mind to tell the ambassador hold on, let's get the facts straight, first. As regards Mr Muscat, he did not resign because he accepted that his son was guilty - he has not been charged, yet, let alone tried. He felt that the situation did leave him serene enough to carry out his duties.

That is very much a personal consideration. Yet, life is fraught with difficulties. Calm today does not guarantee calm tomorrow. We are all susceptible to events, to trials, to tragedy which could throw us completely out of kilter. I reckon that at the back of Mr Muscat's mind lurked the apprehension at how the Irish media revelation would expose him to fresh attack in Malta.

That is the apprehension inherent within the consciousness of the political class. Its members know the perennially prevailing style. They bring upon themselves the danger that at some point in time they will be at the receiving end.

I would have understood had Mr Muscat declined reappointment because the VoM affair, while not leaving him with a guilty verdict, had not totally exonerated him, either. But to resign because of a situation concerning an offspring was not the best immediate course. It would have been more appropriate not to accept the reappointment.

The human factor will remain with the whole political class through time, and with each member of it, past, present and future. The political class should never seek personal advantage out of its position, and should strive to be an example to others. It would, however, treat the public as a bunch of gullible fools if it projected an image of itself as a shining example of perfection.

No one is immune to the human factor. Much as politicians strive to avoid it, they cannot give any assurance that none of their relatives or close circle of activists will not err at some point or other. They should not be expected to give any such assurance. Like the rest of society the only thing they can assert with certainty is that they and theirs are human as well, and therefore imperfect.

Perfection is not of this world.

Resigning mutters: Alfie what?

Former Nationalist Minister Michael Falzon did not just mutter up his sleeve that he would consider resigning because of a tirade flung at the WSC board of directors which he chaired by its blunt minister, Austin Gatt. He thought long and deeply over the minister's letter, which did not exactly praise the board, but also threatened it with investigation by the auditor-general.

After much pondering, chairman Falzon resigned. The matter was externalised by the ministry, no doubt to avoid any leaks. The tough letter sent by Dr Gatt to the WSC board was published, as was Mr Falzon's letter of resignation. The ministry said that the minister did not feel this was a resigning matter.

Wasn't it? Even half of it would have provoked a resignation by an earlier version of Mr Falzon, one not operating in a pre-general election climate. He had, in fact, not resigned in the heat of the moment, but after deliberating deeply what to do, and ending up resigning, I'm sure, coldly and rationally, without the need to pull petals off daisies muttering Austin loves me, he loves me not.

So what went on behind the scenes? By the look of it Mr Falzon came out the winner, so that the chain of chairmen departing from Minister Gatt's portfolio and reach would not lengthen. "WSC chairman to stay on", reported The Times on Wednesday, recalling that Dr Gatt had castigated the corporation's board of directors for the way it handled - or did not handle - cost overruns on capital projects.

A ministry statement announced that chairman Falzon and Minister Gatt had met. They discussed the financial variations regarding the sewage plants being built in Mellieha and Gozo. The ministry said its position on the variations was similar to that of the board of directors.

One might be permitted, at this stage, to whistle the tune What's it all about, Alfie? Is it really possible that an earlier discussion while Mr Falzon was pondering what to do could not have reached the same conclusion? Did it have to take a resignation for the minister and the chairman to spring into each other's arms?

The ministry said that in a letter sent last week (after the resignation?) the board was suggesting (to whom?) the setting up of an "ad hoc monitoring board" to scrutinise all procedures and valuations relating to variations, and endorse them or otherwise.

The chairman's letter added, with implied emphasis, that to date the board had only approved one variation order, with regard to the Mellieha plant project. It had resulted from the re-routing of the pressure main because of permit constraints.

So, the taxpayer is entitled to ask, why did the minister fly off the handle and rap the board on the knuckles so severely that chairman Falzon, after pondering deeply, felt he had no option but to resign? Mr Falzon is no slouch at writing effectively. He wrote to the minister, in the process of withdrawing his resignation, that the board shared the minister's concern on the amount of "potential" variations related to the two contracts. "However, we felt that the manner in which the variant claims were managed was according to the financial regulations."

In other words the minister was wrong to castigate the board.

Amazingly, in his reply Minister Gatt told Mr Falzon that the board's reply was "totally acceptable". So what was the first tirade all about? Once the board was operating according to the financial regulations, what need is there to set up an "ad hoc committee"? Who will sit on the committee? Will the ministry be represented?

Opposition leader Alfred Sant called Michael Falzon's resignation a sham. Yet Mr Falzon is not known as one who fakes satisfaction or moans. What exactly went on? Resignation withdrawn and no more implied insults traded, the matter is no clearer than at the outset.

Now the muttering can start - did the Prime Minister intervene to implore the two strong Nationalist characters not to rock the boat?

Whistle again: What was that all about, Alfie?!