Tonio Fenech's own goal

Finance minister Tonio Fenech must be ruing his football-watching jaunt - or at least its exposure by the press. With one grossly ill-judged decision he has delivered a massive blow to his credibility. Being able to watch Theo Walcott and his fellow team mates from a privileged ringside position may have seemed to be an attractive proposition at the time, but by accepting freebie flights and match tickets from businessmen George Fenech and Joe Fenech respectively, the minister has called into question his judgment and his regard for the code of ethics which he should observe.

That there is a breach of the code of ethics is quite clear. The code - which lays down rules of conduct for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, states that ministers should not accept gifts or services which might be deemed to create an obligation, real or imaginary. The same rule applies to their spouse and minor children.

The reason for this prohibition is to prevent ministers from feeling a sense of indebtedness to those who try to wine them, dine them, or fête them in some other manner. Those people who think the code is an impractical limitation on ministers' work and communication, are missing the point. The idea is not to have the ministers living like hermits shunning any form of socialisation. The intention is to avoid having ministers feel they have to return favours made to them.

It's difficult to ignore someone's request for preferential treatment or inside information, when he's been treating you to fun freebies. Savvy businessmen know all about the power of reciprocity - giving something to an individual so that he feels an obligation to return the favour. And if ministers respond positively to those who have the deep pockets to court them, it might mean they don't look so kindly on those who do not have the money or the inclination to suck up to them.

Fenech knows this, which is why his reaction of put upon victim was particularly irritating. When being interviewed last week, he said he did not discuss business during his trip, and then asked plaintively, "Don't I have a right to watch Arsenal play and take my son with me? Why is somebody trying to turn this into a scandal as if I want to do George (Fenech) any favours?"

This kind of deliberate disingenuousness makes me want to gnash my teeth. Of course, Fenech has a right to watch a football match with his son. Nobody is suggesting he stays put and trade Panini stickers instead. I don't agree with those people who insist the minister should show solidarity with those who are feeling the effects of the recession and cannot afford to jet off and watch a Champions League match. There will always be people with different means, and anybody who can pay for their treats, is perfectly entitled to do so.

To insist Fenech should not travel in order to show he is sensitive to others' hardship, is a rather absurd proposition. As long as he ponies up the money for the trip himself, he can fly to the ends of the earth. The current fuss or 'scandal' has arisen because Fenech did not do that, but accepted gifts from people who could potentially benefit from his decisions. It's about the way he has placed himself in a position where he may be perceived as being in debt to those entrepreneurs who sponsored his flight and breached the code of ethics in one go.

An astute observer of the political scene told me that Fenech's self-pitying tone ("I am honest but half the population would not believe me irrespective of what I say because they are politically against me") reminded him of Richard Nixon's speech back in 1952 when he was a vice-presidential candidate. He had been accused of improprieties relating to a fund established by his backers to reimburse him for his political expenses. With his political future hanging by a thread, Nixon made a television address. He said that regardless of what anyone said, he intended to keep one gift: a black-and-white dog which the Nixon children called Checkers.

There are other similarities between the two politicians - the appeal to viewers' emotions (mention the children), the refusal to admit having behaved incorrectly and blaming their predicament on people with differing political views.

The Prime Minister is another politician who seems to think the Fenech affair is not self-inflicted. In fact he stated that the claims of a possible conflict of interest formed part of the mudslinging campaign by parties who wanted to influence the government's decision on who got the licence to run the casino.

This attack-is-the-best-form-of-defence reaction is ridiculous, especially when one considers that the PN media went into a frenzy a few years back when a Labour Party delegation accompanied some businessmen to Dubai. There were many accusations of cronyism then - despite the fact that the PL was in opposition and not in a position to dish out favours, as ministers are.

Why was there no prime ministerial statement about mudslinging then? Gonzi's defence of Fenech's actions is in stark contrast with his statement regarding the introduction of a Code of Ethics for Members of the House in 1995. At the time, he was the Speaker of the House and had welcomed the code, saying that it provided a further tool for public scrutiny and enhanced accountability.

Fourteen years down the line, things have changed and calls for ethical behaviour are considered to be "mud-slinging".

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt