The Enemalta dossier affair

The other week an enterprising journalist of The Times reported the parts that had been blotted out when a dossier on Enemalta's management was put on the corporation's website. The botched attempt at 'censorship' was so amateurish that the blocked out sections were actually accessible by a simple procedure one could carry out from a computer away from the corporation's 'watchful' eyes!

This in itself should have been a story with a good dose of news value, more so when the ministry responsible for the corporation is also in charge of Malta's progress towards an IT 'smart island' vision that has been touted for so long.

For me, the big news was something else, even though many seem to have missed it in the wake of the two Micallef turnarounds: on the eve of the last general election, someone in the Corporation's management structure officially prepared a dossier 'to provide a new government with a comprehensive overview of the corporation outlining the state of play, the issues at stake and recommendations'.

This is an incredibly audacious act that must be a first in Malta's political history: a state corporation officially preparing a report that would be useful only if the party in government lost the election!

Before a general election in the United Kingdom, it is normal for ministry permanent secretaries - not departments or state-owned enterprises - to prepare two separate reports outlining recommendations for the 'way forward' in line with what was promised by the two parties contending for government.

When the new minister first sets foot in his office he is then presented with one of the reports, depending on which party wins the election. I always wondered what happens to the other report that is discarded in line with the democratic wishes of the people.

Such a way of doing things is unheard of in Malta. In 1987, when it was obvious that the election would probably lead to a change of administration, no one dared prepare any official document just in case the PN won. Apart from the fact that most of the newly appointed ministers had done their homework on what was going on - through unofficial contacts - It was only after their appointment that each department and public entity were asked for a report on the state of play.

The Enemalta dossier affair becomes even more suspect when it was known that the party in opposition - that lost the election - actually possessed a copy of the document that was supposedly to be passed on to them only in the event of their winning the election.

Labour spokesmen were even quoting from it while the ministry was saying that it was unaware of its existence - a circumstance that I do not doubt. More so, considering that Enemalta fell under the remit of the same minister before and after the 2008 election. When the ministry ferreted out the document and decided to publish it - with some warts removed, only to resurface on some computer screens - the minister felt he had to defend himself against the accusations of 'political interference' that were made in the dossier.

All this makes a mockery of the notion of loyalty to the government of the day that the public service ethos espouses. That the initiative that led to the dossier was taken 'officially' by someone in the Enemalta management reflects badly on the control that the administration has over the so-called public service 'minions'. Only a few days ago, Union Haddiema Maghudin general secretary Gejtu Vella called on government to remove laid-back civil servants, complaining that he had to go to the Prime Minister himself with trivial problems that could easily be solved by officers in the lower tiers of the administration.

Removing civil servants is not as easy as Vella seems to be implying and he, of all people, should know. Whether these are simply 'laid back', possibly afraid or too lazy to take the responsibility that they should take, or whether they have ulterior motives, is a moot point.

No greater harm can undermine a government than a civil service that is sure that the government's days are over and that it will soon be switching its 'loyalty' to a new administration. This is a danger that the Lawrence Gonzi government is risking and this can only exacerbate its precarious situation. Indeed, such a public service attitude could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Not so the 'prophetic' intuition of the unknown author of the Enemalta dossier. He must have been quite surprised when the election result did not turn out the way he thought it would and found he had to continue 'serving' the same political master. Perhaps he had to adopt a schizophrenic stance and behave as if nothing had taken place.

After embarrassing the government with the decision on the Delimara Power Station extension contract, Enemalta has done it again: embarrassing the government with an official critique of the government's behaviour, something that should be the sole province of politicians.

Political interference indeed!

micfal@maltanet.net